ABM Industries Overtime Cases
A132387
| Cal. Ct. App. | Jan 10, 2018Background
- ABM Industries employed thousands of nonexempt janitors in California and used a centralized Labor Management System (LMS) that scheduled shifts and auto-deducted 30-minute meal periods for shifts ≥5 hours.
- Plaintiffs (current and former ABM janitors) sued as a putative class alleging systemic wage-and-hour violations: missed/unpaid meal periods, unpaid split-shift premiums, and failure to reimburse travel between jobsites; they sought certification of a general class (~35,000 workers) plus subclasses (meal-deduction, meal-premium, split-shift premium, reimbursement).
- Plaintiffs relied heavily on expert Aaron Woolfson, who analyzed millions of LMS/timekeeping entries and reported widespread auto-deductions, almost no exception adjustments, rare premium payments, and few reimbursements.
- The trial court excluded Woolfson’s expert evidence as insufficiently qualified and immaterial, denied plaintiffs’ request under Code Civ. Proc. § 473(b) to supplement expert qualification proof, and denied class certification.
- The Court of Appeal held the trial court abused its discretion by wholesale excluding Woolfson’s database expertise and reversed the denial of class certification, finding subclasses ascertainable and common issues predominated.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert (Woolfson) | Woolfson is qualified by extensive database/timekeeping experience; his analyses are central to proving common practices. | Woolfson lacked formal credentials; his opinions are conclusory and not material. | Court: Trial court abused discretion by excluding Woolfson; his experiential qualifications and factual database findings admissible. |
| Relief under CCP § 473(b) to supplement expert credentials | Plaintiffs sought leave to add detail on Woolfson’s qualifications, excusable neglect because ABM did not aggressively challenge credentials earlier. | ABM argued no basis for relief; trial court said certification failure was substantive, not lawyer error. | Court declined to decide § 473(b) error as exclusion of Woolfson alone required reversal; plaintiffs need not prevail on § 473(b). |
| Ascertainability of subclasses | Subclasses are definable by objective payroll/timekeeping criteria in ABM records; potential over-inclusiveness goes to merits, not ascertainability. | Subclasses require individualized merits inquiries to identify members; thus unascertainable. | Court: Subclasses are ascertainable via ABM’s records (LMS); over-inclusiveness does not defeat ascertainability. |
| Predominance / suitability for class treatment | Common legal/factual issues (uniform LMS policy, auto-deduct, lack of premium/reimbursement) predominate; liability amenable to classwide proof. | Individualized inquiries (did each employee actually take a meal, miles driven) predominate and defeat class treatment. | Court: Predominance favors certification; defendant’s individualized defenses go to merits/damages and do not preclude class certification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brinker v. Superior Court, 53 Cal.4th 1004 (Cal. 2012) (employer meal-break obligations and class-suit suitability for uniform policies)
- Sargon Enterprises, Inc. v. University of Southern California, 55 Cal.4th 747 (Cal. 2012) (standard for excluding expert testimony; gatekeeper must exclude only clearly invalid expert opinion)
- Brown v. Colm, 11 Cal.3d 639 (Cal. 1974) (erroneous exclusion of sole essential expert is abuse of discretion)
- Jaimez v. Daiohs USA, Inc., 181 Cal.App.4th 1286 (Cal. Ct. App. 2010) (pattern-and-practice and database evidence can support class certification for meal/rest/overtime claims)
- Nicodemus v. Saint Francis Memorial Hospital, 3 Cal.App.5th 1200 (Cal. Ct. App. 2016) (ascertainability met where defendant records provide objective means to identify class members)
- Bufil v. Dollar Financial Group, Inc., 162 Cal.App.4th 1193 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (records-based identification suffices for ascertainability in wage-hour class)
- Amaral v. Cintas Corp. No. 2, 163 Cal.App.4th 1157 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (when employer records are incomplete, burden may shift and imprecise employee proof can suffice for damages)
- Cicairos v. Summit Logistics, Inc., 133 Cal.App.4th 949 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005) (employer’s failure to keep statutorily required records shifts consequences to employer)