The U.S. Supreme Court case Icicle Seafoods, Inc. v. Worthington et al., 1985 centered around the interpretation of a federal statute that regulates wages for seamen working on American vessels. The respondents, who were employed as fish processors aboard floating factory trawlers owned by the petitioner, claimed they should be classified as "seamen" and thus entitled to higher wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). However, Icicle Seafoods argued that their employees did not qualify as "seamen," but rather fell into an exempt category because they worked in canneries located on navigable waters. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Icicle Seafoods stating that workers involved primarily in fish processing activities do not fall within FLSA's definition of 'seaman'. Therefore, these workers are exempt from overtime pay requirements under Section 13(b)(6) which applies to any employee employed as a seaman regardless whether or not his duties involve navigation or contribute to transportation-related functions.

In the dissenting opinion for ICICLE SEAFOODS, INC. v. WORTHINGTON et al., Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of the Jones Act and its application to seamen who live aboard their employer's vessels but do not contribute to their function or mission. He argued that such workers should be considered "seamen" under the Jones Act because they face similar risks and hardships as those who work on board, including isolation from society and dependence on their employers for basic necessities like food and shelter. Furthermore, he contended that these workers are subject to maritime law due to their residence on a vessel in navigable waters - regardless of whether they directly aid in navigation or commerce - which makes them eligible for protection under federal legislation designed specifically for seafarers' welfare.