Brown v. ABM Industries, Inc. et al
Filing
41
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order Signed by the Honorable Amy J. St. Eve on 12/1/2015:Mailed notice(kef, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
VERONICA BROWN, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
ABM INDUSTRIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 15 C 6729
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
AMY J. ST. EVE, District Court Judge:
On September 17, 2015, Plaintiff Veronica Brown, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed the present Second Amended Collective and Class Action
Complaint alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq.
(“FLSA”), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law, 820 ILCS 105/1, et seq. (“IMWL”) based on
Defendants’ alleged failure to pay overtime compensation for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a week. Before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), as well as Defendants’ Rule 12(f) motion to strike. For
the following reasons, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court, in its
discretion, grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion to strike.
LEGAL STANDARDS
I.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
“A motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) challenges the
viability of a complaint by arguing that it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted.” Camasta v. Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc., 761 F.3d 732, 736 (7th Cir. 2014). Under
Rule 8(a)(2), a complaint must include “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the
pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). The short and plain statement under Rule
8(a)(2) must “give the defendant fair notice of what the claim is and the grounds upon which it
rests.” Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007)
(citation omitted). Under the federal notice pleading standards, a plaintiff’s “factual allegations
must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
Put differently, a “complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct.
1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). When reviewing the
sufficiency of a complaint under the Twombly/Iqbal plausibility standard, courts must accept the
well-pleaded facts as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor. See Tierney
v. Advocate Health & Hosp. Corp., 797 F.3d 449, 451 (7th Cir. 2015). The relevant question at
the motion to dismiss stage is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail on the merits, but
whether the complaint is sufficient to cross the federal pleading threshold. See Skinner v.
Switzer, 562 U.S. 521, 529-30, 131 S.Ct. 1289, 179 L.Ed.2d 233 (2011).
II.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) allows a party to raise as a federal court’s lack
of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). When bringing a facial challenge to
subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) “the district court must accept as true all material
allegations of the complaint, drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the plaintiff’s favor,
unless standing is challenged as a factual matter.” Remijas v. Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, 794
F.3d 688, 691 (7th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears
2
the burden of establishing the required elements of standing. See Johnson v. U.S. Office of
Personnel Mgmt., 783 F.3d 655, 661 (7th Cir. 2015).
III.
Motion to Strike – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f)
“Rule 12(f) provides that a district court ‘may strike from a pleading an insufficient
defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter.’” Delta Consulting
Grp., Inc. v. R. Randle Const., Inc., 554 F.3d 1133, 1141 (7th Cir. 2009) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(f)). Motions to strike are generally disfavored, but may be appropriate if they serve to
expedite litigation. See Heller Fin., Inc. v. Midwhey Powder, 883 F.2d 1286, 1294 (7th Cir.
1989); see also Talbot v. Robert Matthews Distrib. Co., 961 F.2d 654, 664 (7th Cir. 1992)
(allegations may be stricken if matter bears no relation to controversy). District courts have
considerable discretion to strike allegations under Rule 12(f). See Delta, 554 F.3d at 1141-42.
BACKGROUND
In her Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff brings her FLSA and IMWL claims against
Defendant ABM Industries, Incorporated (“ABM Industries”) and its subsidiaries, which provide
janitorial services for large office buildings in Chicago and employ thousands of hourly paid
janitors. (R. 30, Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 14, 15.) Plaintiff alleges that during the statutory
period, Defendants used three methods of timekeeping, namely, handwritten time sheets, punch
cards, and electronic timekeeping devices. (Id. ¶ 53.) This case involves janitors who used
handwritten time sheets. (Id. ¶ 54.) According to Plaintiff, Defendants instructed and required
janitors to write down and record only their scheduled hours on handwritten time sheets, rather
than record all of the time worked each work day and workweek. (Id. ¶ 55.) Plaintiff
specifically alleges that during the relevant statutory period, Defendants had a policy that
3
required janitors to collect and prepare their cleaning supplies and equipment prior to the start of
their scheduled shift time, but did not pay them for this pre-shift work. (Id. ¶ 58.)
ANALYSIS
I.
Motion to Dismiss
In the present motion to dismiss, Defendants explain that this is the fifth collective/class
action that Plaintiff’s counsel have filed against ABM and its affiliates. Defendants posit that the
key distinction in the present lawsuit is that Plaintiff and the putative class allegedly spent
unpaid, pre-shift time gathering and preparing their supplies and recorded their time on paper
time sheets – not via punch cards or electronic timekeeping devices. Defendants move to
dismiss based on Plaintiff’s lack of standing arguing that Plaintiff has failed to allege an
employer-employee relationship with any of the named Defendants. In their opening brief,
Defendants focus on the FLSA’s definition of “employer” and maintain that Plaintiff has failed
to allege that the four ABM entities at issue are joint employers under the “economic reality
test.” (R. 32, Open. Brief, at 5.) To give Defendants’ argument context, the Court first examines
the FLSA’s definitions of “employee” and “employer.”
The FLSA imposes minimum hourly and overtime wages for employees who are
“engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce” or “employed in an
enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for commerce.” 29 U.S.C. §§
206(a), 207(a)(1). As such, at this juncture, Plaintiff must sufficiently allege that she is an
employee who is engaged in commerce (individual-based coverage) or that her employer is an
enterprise engaged in commerce (enterprise-based coverage). See Tony & Susan Alamo Found.
v. Secretary of Labor, 471 U.S. 290, 295, 105 S.Ct. 1953 (1985). Thus, to address Defendants’
4
argument, the Court must determine whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that Defendants
fulfill the definition of employer under the FLSA. An employer is an “enterprise” covered under
the FLSA if it “has employees engaged in commerce or in the production of goods for
commerce, or [ ] has employees handling, selling, or otherwise working on goods or materials
that have been moved in or produced for commerce by any person” and “is an enterprise whose
annual gross volume of sales made or business done is not less than $500,000.” 29 U.S.C. §
203(s)(1)(A)(i),(ii).
In response to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff maintains that whether a FLSA defendant is
an “employer” or “joint employer” is a substantive element of a plaintiff’s claim – not a
jurisdictional requirement, and thus Defendants’ argument does not concern subject matter
jurisdiction. To date, the Seventh Circuit has yet to address whether meeting the statutory
definition of “employer” in the context of the FLSA is a jurisdictional requirement or statutory
element, but has “held that failure to meet the statutory definition of an employer in a Title VII
or ADEA context is not a defect of subject matter jurisdiction but an ordinary failure to meet a
statutory requirement.” Saperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852, 855 n.1 (7th Cir. 1999). Moreover,
courts in this district have concluded that a challenge to whether an employer is a covered
enterprise under the FLSA relates to the merits of the claim and not subject matter jurisdiction.
See Torres v. Pallets 4 Less, Inc., No. 14 CV 4219, 2015 WL 920782, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 2,
2015) (collecting cases).
The Court agrees with the reasoning in these cases, especially in light of the United
States Supreme Court’s decision in Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163
L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). In Arbaugh, the Supreme Court held that the issue of whether a party is an
5
“employer” under Title VII was an element of the party’s claim – not a jurisdictional
requirement. See id. at 516. In particular, the Supreme Court noted that “[s]ubject matter
jurisdiction in federal-question cases is sometimes erroneously conflated with a plaintiff’s need
and ability to prove the defendant bound by the federal law asserted as the predicate for relief – a
merits-related determination.” Id. at 511 (quoting 2 J. Moore et al., Moore’s Federal Practice §
12.30[1], p. 12–36.1 (3d ed. 2005)). After reviewing the definition of employer under Title VII,
namely, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b), the Supreme Court concluded that whether an employer falls
within this definition is a merits-based determination and held that “when Congress does not
rank a statutory limitation on coverage as jurisdictional, courts should treat the restriction as
nonjurisdictional in character.” Arbaugh, 546 U.S. at 516.
Similarly, the FLSA’s definition of employer under 29 U.S.C. § 203(s) does not suggest
that it is jurisdictional, but instead, it is an element of a plaintiff’s claim. See Chao v. Hotel
Oasis, Inc., 493 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir. 2007); Jian Long Li v. Li Qin Zhao, 35 F. Supp. 3d 300,
305 (E.D.N.Y. 2014); Gilbert v. Freshbikes, LLC, 32 F. Supp. 3d 594, 601 (D. Md. 2014);
Malloy v. Ass’n of State & Territorial Solid Waste Mgmt. Officials, 955 F. Supp. 2d 50, 53
(D.D.C. 2013); Rodriguez v. Diego’s Rest., Inc., 619 F. Supp. 2d 1345, 1350 (S.D. Fla. 2009);
Saleen v. Waste Mgmt., Inc., 610 F. Supp. 2d 1026, 1031 (D. Minn. 2009). The Court therefore
reviews Defendants’ challenge to the merits of Plaintiff’s allegations under Rule 12(b)(6).
A.
Plaintiff Has Sufficiently Alleged That Defendants Are Joint Employers
Turning to whether Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that the named Defendants are
employers, it is well-settled that “[t]wo or more employers may jointly employ someone for the
purpose of the FLSA.” Karr v. Strong Detective Agency, Inc., 787 F.2d 1205, 1207 (7th Cir.
6
1986); see also 29 C.F.R. § 791.2. Citing Brunner v. Liautaud, No. 14 C 5509, 2015 WL
1598106, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 8, 2015), Defendants assert that whether they are joint employers
under the FLSA depends on the “economic reality” of the parties’ relationship. See also Karr,
787 F.2d at 1207. Under the Department of Labor’s regulations:
Where the employee performs work which simultaneously benefits two or more
employers, or works for two or more employers at different times during the
workweek, a joint employment relationship generally will be considered to exist
in situations such as:
(1) Where there is an arrangement between the employers to share the
employee’s services, as for example, to interchange employees; or
(2) Where one employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of
the other employer (or employers) in relation to the employee; or
(3) Where the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to
the employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share
control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that
one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with
the other employer.
29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b) (footnotes omitted); see also Cuff v. Trans States Holdings, Inc., 768 F.3d
605, 608 (7th Cir. 2014). “A determination of whether the employment by the employers is to
be considered joint employment or separate and distinct employment for purposes of the act
depends upon all the facts in the particular case.” 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(a)).
Viewing the totality of “the circumstances of the whole activity,” see Karr, 787 F.2d at
1208, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that ABM Industries is acting directly or indirectly in the
interest of the other ABM entities as outlined under 29 C.F.R. § 791.2(b)(2). See Iqbal, 556 U.S.
at 678 (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”).
7
In particular, Plaintiff alleges that during the relevant time period, ABM Industries was
the parent corporation of ABM Onsite Services, Inc., ABM Janitorial Services, Inc. (now known
as ABM Onsite Services, Inc.), and ABM Janitorial Services – North Central, Inc. (Second Am.
Compl. ¶¶ 26, 129.) Plaintiff maintains that ABM Industries’ wage and hour policies, including
policies regarding overtime pay, are established by ABM Industries and implemented by its
wholly-owned subsidiaries. (Id. ¶¶ 132-34.) Further, Plaintiff asserts that ABM Industries
provides company-wide wage and hour instructions and training to the regional subsidiaries. (Id.
¶ 135.) According to Plaintiff, ABM Industries’ in-house counsel advises and instructs all of its
regional locations, officers, and subsidiaries to implement or change their wage and hour policies
and practices. (Id. ¶¶ 145-46.) Also, Plaintiff alleges that ABM Industries – as the corporate
parent – has only one legal department which serves all of ABM Industries’ regions,
subsidiaries, and affiliates, including those in Illinois. (Id. ¶ 147.) Plaintiff additionally
contends that ABM Industries trains its supervisors, operations managers, and branch managers
to instruct janitors to arrive early and collect their supplies and equipment before their paid shift
begins. (Id. ¶¶ 85-86.) Further, Plaintiff articulates that after she complained to her supervisor
about not being paid for all of the hours she worked, her supervisor told her that nothing could
be done about it because the decision not to pay for pre-shift work came from ABM
management. (Id. ¶ 70.) According to Plaintiff, ABM Industries, directly or indirectly with the
other named Defendants, established a policy that forbids payment of overtime to janitors unless
it is pre-approved. (Id. ¶ 161.) Under these facts, Plaintiff has sufficiently alleged that
Defendants collectively constitute a joint employer for purposes of the FLSA.
8
B.
Article III Standing
Nevertheless, despite Defendants’ arguments in their opening brief that Plaintiff failed to
sufficiently allege that the named Defendants are joint employers, in reply, Defendants argue
that Plaintiff “misses the point” regarding their standing challenge. In particular, Defendants
argue that Plaintiff cannot establish Article III standing to bring her claims because she has
failed to sufficiently allege an injury that is fairly traceable to the challenged action of each
named Defendant. Based on this argument, the Court directed Plaintiff to file a sur-reply
addressing this issue.
“To establish Article III standing, ‘a plaintiff must show (1) it has suffered an ‘injury in
fact’ that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or
hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it
is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable
decision.’” Silha v. Act, Inc., ___ F.3d ___, 2015 WL 7281602, at *3 (7th Cir. Nov. 18, 2015)
(citation omitted). In reviewing Defendants’ facial challenge, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s wellpleaded factual allegations as true and draws all reasonable inferences in her favor. See id. at *4
(“when evaluating a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), a court
should use Twombly–Iqbal’s ‘plausibility’ requirement, which is the same standard used to
evaluate facial challenges to claims under Rule 12(b)(6)”).
With this standard in mind, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged an injury that is fairly traceable
to the action of each Defendant – keeping in mind that the alleged injury is Defendants’ failure
to pay Plaintiff overtime based on Defendants’ policy of requiring janitors to collect and prepare
their carts and supplies before the start of their scheduled shift without pay. See Iqbal, 556 U.S.
9
at 679 (“Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief” is “a contextspecific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common
sense.”). First, Plaintiff alleges that ABM Industries, the corporate parent, was engaged in the
business of providing janitorial services in Illinois and operated through its wholly owned
subsidiaries. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 22-25.) ABM Industries, as the corporate parent, acts as a
single, integrated enterprise with its national and regional subsidiaries. (Id. ¶¶ 13-15, 21, 24-25,
27-28, 129-31, 135-154, 157-62.) Plaintiff further alleges that ABM Industries originated the
rounding policy, namely, not paying janitors for pre-shift work, and that this rounding policy
was mandatory for the regional and national subsidiaries. (Id. ¶¶ 130, 139-42, 146-47, 157-59.)
Also, Plaintiff contends that ABM Industries jointly – with the national and regional subsidiary
Defendants named in this lawsuit – implemented, controlled, and enforced this rounding policy
and subjected Plaintiff and the class to that policy. (Id. ¶ 27.) According to Plaintiff, ABM
Industries trained supervisors, including her supervisor, to report the scheduled shift hours, but
not all of the time worked, especially the pre-shift work. (Id. ¶¶ 62-68, 143, 146, 157-58.)
Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that ABM Industries employed her and the putative class members.
(Id. ¶¶ 16, 28, 59, 137.)
Likewise, Plaintiff has plausibly alleged that the injury at issue in this lawsuit, namely,
Defendants’ failure to pay overtime based on their policy of requiring janitors to collect and
prepare their carts and supplies before the start of their scheduled shift without pay, is fairly
traceable to the conduct of ABM Industries’ national subsidiary, ABM Janitorial Services, Inc.
(now called ABM Onsite Services, Inc.). Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that ABM Janitorial
Services, Inc., as a national subsidiary, is engaged in the business of providing janitorial services
10
as a wholly-owned subsidiary of the corporate parent, ABM Industries, Inc. (Id. ¶¶ 29-31, 3840.) As the national subsidiary, ABM Janitorial Services, along with the corporate parent ABM
Industries, implemented and controlled the rounding policy and subjected Plaintiff and the
collective class to this policy. (Id. ¶¶ 35, 43.) Furthermore, Plaintiff states that ABM Janitorial
Services employed her and all members of the putative class. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 36, 44, 59.) Plaintiff
also maintains that ABM Janitorial Services trained supervisors, including her supervisor, to
report scheduled shift hours instead of all of the time its employees worked. (Id. ¶¶ 62-68, 143,
146, 157-58.) Plaintiff alleges that the regional subsidiary, ABM Janitorial Services – North
Central, Inc, enforces the national subsidiary’s policy and that the rounding policy systematically
deprived the putative class of their earned wages for this pre-shift work. (Id. ¶¶ 109-17.)
Last, Plaintiff alleges that ABM Janitorial Services – North Central, Inc., as the regional
subsidiary, provided janitorial services in the State of Illinois and is a wholly owned and
controlled subsidiary of the national subsidiary, formerly known as ABM Janitorial Services.
(Id. ¶¶ 45-49.) She further states that ABM Janitorial Services – North Central, jointly with the
parent and national subsidiary, implemented, controlled, and enforced the rounding policy at
issue. (Id. ¶¶ 50, 130.) Moreover, Plaintiff alleges that ABM Janitorial Services – North Central
employed her and the putative class members. (Id. ¶¶ 16, 51, 59.) Similar to the parent and
national subsidiary, Plaintiff asserts that ABM Janitorial Services – North Central trained
supervisors to report the hours from scheduled shifts instead of the actual time worked, and that
this policy systematically deprived her and the class their earned wages for pre-shift work. (Id.
¶¶ 13-14, 62, 106, 157-59.) Accepting Plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations as true and
11
drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, she has sufficiently alleged that the alleged
injuries at issue are traceable to ABM Janitorial Services – North Central, Inc.’s conduct.
Because Plaintiff has plausibly alleged standing under the circumstances, the Court
denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss brought pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
II.
Motion to Strike
In their Rule 12(f) motion to strike, Defendants argue that Plaintiff has included
allegations that do not pertain to the present lawsuit, including allegations regarding punch cards
and electronic timekeeping devices. Although Plaintiff’s claims are based on the putative class
recording the amount of time they worked on paper time sheets, Defendants have not established
that these additional allegations are “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter”
per Rule 12(f). In fact, these allegations relate to the present lawsuit by giving context to how
ABM Industries and its subsidiaries are inter-related and clarify the rounding policy at issue.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s statements about ABM Industries’ SEC Form 10-K, Code of Business
Conduct, and the United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) investigation add context to
Plaintiff’s claims. The DOL’s investigation, for example, explains the rounding policy in the
context of the national subsidiary’s interaction with another regional subsidiary.
In contrast, Plaintiff’s allegations regarding the minutiae of similar lawsuits against ABM
Industries and its subsidiaries are “unnecessary clutter.” See Heller Fin., 883 F.2d at 1294 (if
“motions to strike remove unnecessary clutter from the case, they serve to expedite, not delay”
litigation). The Court, in its discretion, grants this aspect of Defendants’ motion to strike.
On a final note, Defendants’ argument that Plaintiff has failed to properly allege an
employer-employee relationship with any of the named Defendants dovetails into their motion to
12
strike because their employer-employee argument is based on several inconsistencies in the
Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff, for example, alleges that she worked for Defendants
from 2009 until March 2013, but also alleges that she worked for Defendants from 2007 until
May 2013. (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 16, 59.) Also, whether Plaintiff included allegations about
another regional subsidiary to give context to her claims or whether Plaintiff mistakenly added
this regional subsidiary as her employer is a matter of inartful pleading, not standing. The Court
thus grants Plaintiff leave to file a Third Amended Complaint to “clean up” these
inconsistencies, as well as the extraneous allegations regarding other lawsuits.
CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the Court denies Defendants’ motion to dismiss and grants in part and
denies in part Defendants’ motion to strike [31]. Plaintiff has leave to file a Third Amended
Complaint consistent with this ruling on or before December 14, 2015. Defendants must answer
the Third Amended Complaint on or before January 7, 2016.
Dated: December 1, 2015
ENTERED
______________________________
AMY J. ST. EVE
United States District Court Judge
13
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?