A short summary of the current position in the US. Despite the plain language in the POEA contract, which requires Philippine arbitration for claims arising from the seaman’s employment, crewmembers repeatedly file suit in state courts in the U.S. seeking damages far in excess of those available in the Philippines. Over the last few years, and in a recent high profile case, U.S. courts have ordered Filipino crewmembers that file suit in the U.S. to arbitrate their claims against shipowners in the Philippines. Shipowners have been able to remove the case from state court to federal court and seek to compel arbitration under the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, 9 U.S.C. §§ 201-208, ("Convention") to which the U.S. and the Philippines are both signatories. In a series of cases over the last two years, U.S. federal district courts have granted motions to stay U.S. litigation and ordered that disputes between crewmembers and shipowners should be resolved through arbitration in the Philippines. U.S. courts have enforced arbitration clauses both in cases where non-U.S. based shipowners call the U.S. on a sporadic basis as well as those cases where shipowners headquartered in the U.S. have numerous vessels calling at American ports each week. Crewmembers raise various arguments seeking to overcome the presumption in favor of arbitration. They may argue that they had to sign the POEA Contract as presented, without any ability or opportunity to read the contract terms. They may also claim that they were not provided with any notice of the arbitration provisions. Such arguments, however, have not been successful and courts have repeatedly ordered crewmembers to arbitrate their claims in the Philippines. See  Francisco v. Stolt ,  Lejano v. K.S. Bandak ,  Gavino v. Eurochem ,  Adolfo v. Carnival Corporation ,  Santos v. Carnival Corporation ,  Villavicencio v. Royal Caribbean Cruise Lines ,  Gonzalo v.