ABM Industries Incorporated
42 distinct federal employment cases from public court records (2008–2025)
5 trusted published court opinions across 4 distinct cases · 3 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
Public federal court records list ABM Industries Incorporated as an employer in 42 distinct federal employment cases between 2008 and 2025.
Of the 5 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 2 ended in a ruling for the worker, 2 had a mixed result, and 1 ended in a ruling for the employer.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Failure To Accommodate, and Discrimination.
Cases were filed across 2 states, most often in CA.
These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Written decisions across 4 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
ABM Industries Incorporated appears in 5 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Daniel v. ABM Industries Incorporated (2022) — Defendant Win. This case involved an employment discrimination claim filed by Daniel against ABM Industries Incorporated, a facilities services company. Daniel alleged that the company discriminated against him in violation of federal employment laws. The case was heard in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals in March 2022. Read the ruling.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. ABM Industries Inc. (2009) — Mixed Result. This case involved a dispute between the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and ABM Industries, a facilities services company. The EEOC was investigating claims that ABM harassed workers, forced employees to quit through poor treatment (called constructive discharge), and failed to provide reasonable accomm… Read the ruling.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. ABM Industries Inc. (2008) — Mixed Result. This case involved allegations of sex discrimination and retaliation at ABM Industries, a janitorial services company. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed a lawsuit against the company, and several current and former employees wanted to join the case as additional plaintiffs to pursue their own cla… Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft (2 of 5), Failure to Accommodate (2 of 5), Discrimination (2 of 5). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Failure to Accommodate and Discrimination.
Applicable statutes referenced across these rulings include: FLSA (29 U.S.C. §§ 201-219) — The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) establishes minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards affecting full-time and part-time workers in the private sector and in federal, state, and local governments. See the FLSA reference page for filing deadlines, employee thresholds, and remedies. FLSA.
Published opinions span California (3), Arkansas (1). California is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. California rulings and Arkansas rulings.
Opinion Outcomes
Opinion Stages
5 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
What do these stages mean?
- Appeal
- A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
- Motion to dismiss
- An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.
Facing something similar? Check your rights →
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving similar workplaces.
Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.