In re ABM Indus. Overtime Cases
Decision Date | 11 December 2017 |
Docket Number | JCCP No. 4502,A133695,A132387,A133077 |
Citation | 19 Cal.App.5th 277,227 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 |
Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Parties | ABM INDUSTRIES OVERTIME CASES |
Counsel for Appellants: Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, David A. Rosenfeld, Christian L. Raisner, Emily P. Rich, Roberta D. Perkins, Alameda; Mallison & Martinez, Stan S. Mallison, Marco A. Palau, Lafayette, Joseph D. Sutton, Oakland; Rastegar & Matern, Matthew J. Matern, Manhattan Beach
Counsel for Respondents: Littler Mendelson, Keith A. Jacoby, Dominic J. Messiha, Los Angeles, Lauren E. Robinson
Respondent ABM Industries, Inc. (collectively with related respondents, ABM) is a large facility services company with employees throughout the United States, including thousands of janitorial workers at hundreds of job sites in California. Appellants (referred to herein as plaintiffs) are present or former ABM janitorial employees. On behalf of themselves and similarly situated Californians, plaintiffs filed their complaint in this coordinated proceeding in September 2007, alleging that ABM violated California labor laws by, among other things, failing to properly record and compensate employees for meal breaks; requiring employees to work split shifts without appropriate compensation; and failing to ensure that employees were reimbursed for expenses incurred when traveling between work sites. In June 2010, plaintiffs moved for class certification of a general class of ABM workers and various subclasses of such workers who had been subjected to particular wage and hour violations. After briefing and argument, the trial court found plaintiffs' expert evidence inadmissible and indicated orally that it was denying the class certification motion. In response, plaintiffs filed a motion pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 473, subdivision (b) (the 473(b) motion), attempting to supplement the evidence previously provided with respect to the qualifications of their expert. By order dated June 29, 2011, the trial court denied plaintiffs' 473(b) motion. Thereafter, on September 1, 2011, the trial court issued its written order, formally denying plaintiffs' class certification motion. We conclude that the trial court's wholesale exclusion of plaintiffs' expert evidence in this case was error. We further determine that the trial court's refusal to grant class certification on these facts was an abuse of discretion, and therefore reverse.
ABM's numerous California janitorial employees work at customers' workplaces scattered throughout the state. ABM's job sites in California are organized into two regions (Northern California and Southern California), various branches within a region, and dozens of distinct districts within a branch. A district is a number of buildings within a geographic area. Each branch is under the supervision of a different branch manager. Employees report to an individual site supervisor, who in turn reports to the branch manager. According to ABM, the site supervisor is responsible for "the daily operations of the location, including assurance that employees are paid properly and provided with their meal and rest breaks ...." However, it appears that ABM's wage and hour policies are controlled centrally and thus applied uniformly throughout all janitorial job sites. In addition, ABM pays all of its employees through use of a single software application, the Labor Management System (LMS).
ABM provides janitorial services to clients under contracts obtained through competitive bidding. According to ABM, "[t]he low cost of entry in the facility services business has led to strongly competitive markets comprised of a large number of mostly regional and local owner-operated companies, primarily located in major cities throughout the United States." In order to compete, ABM provides various contracts at agreed-upon prices. For instance, ABM provides a fixed price contract where "the client agrees to pay a fixed fee every month over a specified contract term." Under the cost-plus arrangement, "the clients reimburse [ABM] for the agreed-upon amount of wages and benefits, payroll taxes, insurance charges and other expenses associated with the contracted work." Given the fixed-price nature of these contracts, it is ABM, not the customer, who is responsible for higher labor costs if their employees cannot finish their assigned work within budgeted timeframes. As Faisal Algaheim, ABM's Regional Operations Manager for Northern California, testified:
All of ABM's non-exempt janitorial employees, who provide the services under these contracts, are entitled to the benefits prescribed by California's labor laws and the related wage orders promulgated by the Industrial Welfare Commission (Wage Orders). For instance, ( Alberts v. Aurora Behavioral Health Care (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 388, 400, 193 Cal.Rptr.3d 783 ( Alberts ).) We refer to any extra hours of wages potentially due to employees under the labor laws as premium pay.
Similarly, pursuant to Wage Order 5-2001(4)(C): "When an employee works a split shift, one hour's pay at the minimum wage shall be paid in addition to the minimum wage for that workday ...." (See Lab. Code, § 1197 []; see also id. , §§ 1194, subd. (a) & 1194.2 [ ].) For purposes of this requirement, "split shift" is defined to mean "a work schedule which is interrupted by non-paid non-working periods established by the employer, other than bona fide rest or meal periods." (Wage Order 5-2001(2)(R).) Although the Wage Order does not define "bona fide meal period," the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) has historically taken the position that a bona fide meal period "is one that does not exceed one hour (60 minutes) in length." (DLSE Of Counsel H. Thomas Cadell, Jr., letter to Paul K. Schrieffer, Dec. 11, 2002.)1
Finally, California law requires employers to fully reimburse employees for expenses actually and necessarily incurred in the discharge of their duties, including automobile expenses. ( Lab. Code, § 2802 ; Gattuso v. Harte-Hanks Shoppers, Inc. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 554, 569, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 468, 169 P.3d 889 ( Gattuso ).) This right to reimbursement cannot be waived. ( Gattuso , supra , 42 Cal.4th at p. 561, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 468, 169 P.3d 889.) However, an employer can discharge its reimbursement obligation in a number of different ways, including through reimbursement for actual expenses or mileage, or through lump sum payments. ( Id. at pp. 567–571, 67 Cal.Rptr.3d 468, 169 P.3d 889.)
On September 19, 2007, plaintiffs filed their consolidated class action complaint in this matter (Complaint). The Complaint alleges numerous violations of California's labor laws and Wage Orders, including violations related to missed meal periods, failure to provide mandatory split shift premium pay, and failure to compensate ABM employees for travel expenses incurred when travelling between job sites. The Complaint additionally alleges unfair competition under Business & Professions Code section 17200, based on the asserted labor law violations. Finally, it contains a claim under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004, Labor Code section 2698 et seq. (PAGA), to collect penalties based on ABM's alleged systemic wrongdoing.
After a number of years of discovery and other preliminary matters, plaintiffs filed their motion for class certification on June 14, 2010. The motion sought certification of a general class described as "[a]ll non-exempt janitorial employees and former non-exempt janitorial employees employed by ABM in the State of California at any time from April 6, 2002 to the present" (ABM Workers) (italics omitted). This putative class was estimated as of 2007 to include approximately 35,000 ABM janitorial employees. In addition, the motion proposed seven subclasses of ABM Workers, the following four of which are relevant here: (A) "ABM Workers who ... suffered an automatic deduction of a half-hour although the employee actually worked through the deducted meal period ..." (Unpaid Time/Meal Period Subclass); (B) "ABM Workers who were not paid premium meal period wages when they (1) worked shifts of at least five hours without an uninterrupted meal period of at least 30 minutes, (2) worked shifts of at least 10 hours without a second uninterrupted meal period...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Barriga v. 99 Cents Only Stores LLC.
...the error was prejudicial to the trial court's certification decision.As the court explained in ABM Industries Overtime Cases (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 277, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 ( ABM Industries ), "Should we determine in this case that an abuse of discretion has occurred, that conclusion alone ......
-
Donohue v. Amn Servs., LLC
...p. 1144, 190 Cal.Rptr.3d 131 ; Lubin, supra , 5 Cal.App.5th at p. 931, 210 Cal.Rptr.3d 215.) Likewise, ABM Industries Overtime Cases (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 277, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 ( ABM ), quoted by Donohue in her reply brief, was an appeal following class certification procedures. ( Id. at......
-
In re Franchise Tax Bd. Ltd. Liab. Corp. Tax Refund Cases
...of the class; and (3) class representatives who can adequately represent the class.’ " ’ " ( ABM Industries Overtime Cases (2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 277, 299, 227 Cal.Rptr.3d 445 ( ABM ).)" ‘ "This state has a public policy which encourages the use of the class action device." ’ [Citation.] Fur......
- Clews Land & Livestock, LLC v. City of San Diego
-
Table of cases
...3d 860, §15:10 Abeyta v. Superior Court (1993) 17 Cal. App. 4th 1037, 21 Cal. Rptr. 2d 680, §5:60 ABM Industries Overtime Cases (2017) 19 Cal. App. 5th 277, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 445, §§17:30, 17:60 Abrahamian, People v. (2020) 45 Cal. App.5th 314, 259 Cal. Rptr. 3d 670, §11:10 A.C. In re (2000......
-
Expert witnesses
...an expert’s knowledge go more to the weight of the evidence presented than to its admissibility. ABM Industries Overtime Cases (2017) 19 Cal. App. 5th 277, 294, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 445. A qualified expert should be permitted to testify as long as he or she has “the necessary minimum acquainta......
-
Chapter 2 - §11. Expert opinion
...in the field so that her testimony would be likely to help the jury in the search for truth. ABM Indus. Overtime Cases (1st Dist.2017) 19 Cal.App.5th 277, 294; see, e.g., People v. Montes (2014) 58 Cal.4th 809, 861 (although officer never qualified as gang expert before, officer had suffici......
-
Table of Cases null
...Court, 112 Cal. App. 4th 39, 4 Cal. Rptr. 3d 767 (4th Dist. 2003)—Ch. 4-C, §6.2.1; §6.5.4(2)(a)[1] ABM Industries Overtime Cases, 19 Cal. App. 5th 277, 227 Cal. Rptr. 3d 445 (1st Dist. 2017)—Ch. 2, §11.1.4(1) A.C., In re, 37 Cal. App. 5th 262, 249 Cal. Rptr. 3d 494 (2d Dist. 2019)—Ch. 4-C, ......