Skip to main content

ABM Industries Overtime Cases

Cal. Ct. App.January 10, 2018No. A132387
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Wage TheftFailure to Accommodate

Outcome

The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of class certification, finding that the wholesale exclusion of plaintiffs' expert evidence was error and that denying class certification was an abuse of discretion. The case was remanded for further proceedings.

What This Ruling Means

**ABM Industries Workers Win Right to Pursue Class Action Lawsuit** This case involved workers at ABM Industries, a large cleaning and facility services company, who claimed their employer failed to pay proper overtime wages and didn't provide required workplace accommodations. The workers wanted to join together in a class action lawsuit, but a lower court initially said no. The appeals court reversed that decision and ruled the workers could proceed as a group. The court found that the trial judge made a mistake by completely rejecting the workers' expert witness testimony without proper consideration. The appeals court said denying the class action was an abuse of the judge's authority and sent the case back to the lower court for a new review. This ruling matters for workers because it protects their ability to band together when fighting large employers over wage theft and accommodation issues. Class action lawsuits are often the only practical way workers can challenge powerful companies, since individual cases can be too expensive and risky. When courts properly allow these group lawsuits, it gives workers much stronger leverage to hold employers accountable for widespread violations of labor laws.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

In re ABM Indus. Overtime Cases
CALCTAPP5DDec 2017
Plaintiff Win
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial School and St. Francis Xavier Church
D.C. CircuitJul 1997
Remanded
People in re S.L. and A.L
COLOCTAPPDec 2017

The Rio Blanco County Department of Human Services (Department) became involved with the parents in this case as a result of concerns about the children's welfare due to the condition of the family home, the parents' use of methamphetamine, and criminal cases involving the parents. Attempts at voluntary services failed, and on the Department's petition for dependency and neglect, the district court ultimately terminated the parents' rights. On appeal, the parents contended that the Department failed to make reasonable efforts to reunify them with their children. Specifically, the parents contended that the Department did not give them sufficient time to complete the services under their treatment plans and failed to accommodate their drug testing needs. The termination hearing was not held until more than a year after the motion to terminate was filed. For nine months before the motion to terminate was filed, the Department provided numerous services to the parents, including substance abuse therapy, therapeutic visitation supervision, drug abuse monitoring, and a parental capacity evaluation. The Department also provided counseling for the children. Both parents missed drug tests and tested positive during the testing period, and both were arrested for possession of methamphetamine during the pendency of the case. The Department made reasonable accommodations to meet the parents' needs and the parents had sufficient time to comply with their treatment plans. The record supports the trial court's findings that termination was appropriate because (1) the court-approved appropriate treatment plan had not been complied with by the parents or had not been successful in rehabilitating them (2) the parents were unfit and (3) the conduct or condition of the parents was unlikely to change within a reasonable time. Father also contended that the trial court's decision to interview the 9-year-old twin children together in chambers fundamentally and seriously affected the basi

Defendant Win
Shelley Savage v. Glendale Union High School, District No. 205, Maricopa County
9th CircuitSep 2003
Plaintiff Win
James Chappel v. Laboratory Corporation of America, AKA National Health Lab
9th CircuitNov 2000
Mixed Result

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.