Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Letters of Credit and Bonds We use letters of credit or surety bonds to secure certain commitments related to insurance programs and for other purposes. As of July 31, 2014, these surety bonds and letters of credit totaled approximately $332.1 million and $115.1 million, respectively. Included in the total amount of surety bonds is $1.2 million of bonds with an effective date starting after July 31, 2014. Guarantees In some instances, we offer certain clients guaranteed energy savings and other guarantees on installed equipment under certain contracts. Total guarantees were $36.6 million at July 31, 2014 and extend through 2029. Total guarantees were $31.4 million at October 31, 2013 and extend through 2027. We accrue for the estimated cost of guarantees when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Historically, we have not incurred any losses in connection with these guarantees. Legal Matters We are a party to a variety of actions, proceedings, and legal, administrative, and other inquiries arising in the normal course of business relating to labor and employment, contracts, personal injury, and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. Some of these actions may be brought as a class action on behalf of a purported class of employees. Litigation outcomes are difficult to predict and are often resolved over long periods of time. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. We accrue for loss contingencies when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of the loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is recorded as a liability. At July 31, 2014, the total amount accrued for all probable litigation losses where a reasonable estimate of the loss could be made was $5.0 million. This $5.0 million includes the accrual of $3.4 million in connection with an unfavorable arbitration decision against us relating to a contract dispute with a third-party administrator. In 2011, we engaged this third-party administrator to provide certain services under a workers’ compensation alternative dispute resolution program. Our contract with the third-party administrator provided that the administrator would be compensated on the basis of the percentage of savings realized by us under the program. We did not compensate this administrator since we believed that no savings were achieved, and the matter was submitted to binding arbitration under the terms of the contract. We have provided written comments to the award strongly objecting to the arbitrator’s decision. We do not accrue for contingent losses that, in our judgment, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. Estimating reasonably possible losses also requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. Management currently estimates that the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses for which an estimate can be made is between zero and $95.8 million, including the possible $94.2 million impact of the Augustus case described below. Factors underlying this estimated range of loss may change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate. In some cases, although a loss is probable or reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential losses or the range of loss. Therefore, our accrual for probable losses and our estimated range of loss for reasonably possible losses do not represent our maximum possible exposure. While the results of these proceedings, claims, and inquiries cannot be predicted with any certainty, management believes that the final outcome of the foregoing will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations, or cash flows. Certain Legal Proceedings Certain pending lawsuits to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether to include any particular lawsuit or other proceeding, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors, including, but not limited to: the amount of damages and the nature of any other relief sought in the proceeding; if such damages and other relief are specified, our view of the merits of the claims; whether the action purports to be a class action, and our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; and the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation. The Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Augustus case”) The Augustus case is a certified class action involving allegations that we violated certain state laws relating to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which sought damages in the amount of $103.1 million, and we filed a motion for decertification of the class. On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Superior Court”), heard plaintiffs’ motion for damages on the rest break claim and our motion to decertify the class. On July 31, 2012, the Superior Court denied our motion and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million. This $89.7 million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses described above. The $89.7 million amount did not include plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. We filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the “Appeals Court”) on August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three separate motions for attorneys’ fees with the Superior Court. One motion sought attorneys’ fees from the common fund. (The common fund refers to the approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs.) The other two motions sought attorneys’ fees from us in an aggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million. On October 12, 2012, we filed oppositions to the two fee motions seeking attorneys’ fees from us with the Superior Court. On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all three fee motions and it granted plaintiffs’ fee motion with respect to the common fund in full. The Superior Court denied one fee motion in its entirety and reduced the other fee motion to approximately $4.5 million. This $4.5 million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses described above. We have appealed the Superior Court’s rulings to the Appeals Court, and on April 30, 2013, the Appeals Court agreed to consolidate the appeals. We strongly disagree with the decisions of the Superior Court both with respect to the underlying case and with respect to the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. We firmly believe that we have complied with the applicable law. Bojorquez v. ABM Industries Incorporated and ABM Janitorial Services–Northern California, Inc., filed on January 13, 2010, in the San Francisco Superior Court (the “Bojorquez case”) We are a defendant in the Bojorquez case. Plaintiff brought suit for sexual harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and discrimination. On May 17, 2012, a jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $0.8 million in damages. We have appealed this decision. On April 11, 2013, the Court awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2.5 million. If we prevail in our appeal of the jury’s verdict, the Court’s award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees will be reversed. The Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the “Bucio case”) The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class certification issues. We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled. We expect to prevail in these ongoing cases. However, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases, or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position or cash flows. Other During October 2011, we began an internal investigation into matters relating to compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and our internal policies in connection with services provided by a foreign entity affiliated with a former joint venture partner of The Linc Group, LLC (“Linc”). Such services commenced prior to the acquisition of Linc. As a result of the investigation, we caused Linc to terminate its association with the arrangement. In December 2011, we contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC to voluntarily disclose the results of our internal investigation to date, and we are cooperating with the government’s investigation. We cannot reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, related to these matters. However, based on the facts currently known, we do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Letters of Credit and Bonds

We use letters of credit or surety bonds to secure certain commitments related to insurance programs and for other purposes. As of July 31, 2014, these surety bonds and letters of credit totaled approximately $332.1 million and $115.1 million, respectively. Included in the total amount of surety bonds is $1.2 million of bonds with an effective date starting after July 31, 2014.

Guarantees

In some instances, we offer certain clients guaranteed energy savings and other guarantees on installed equipment under certain contracts. Total guarantees were $36.6 million at July 31, 2014 and extend through 2029. Total guarantees were $31.4 million at October 31, 2013 and extend through 2027. We accrue for the estimated cost of guarantees when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. Historically, we have not incurred any losses in connection with these guarantees.

Legal Matters

We are a party to a variety of actions, proceedings, and legal, administrative, and other inquiries arising in the normal course of business relating to labor and employment, contracts, personal injury, and other matters, some of which allege substantial monetary damages. Some of these actions may be brought as a class action on behalf of a purported class of employees. Litigation outcomes are difficult to predict and are often resolved over long periods of time. Estimating probable losses requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. We accrue for loss contingencies when losses become probable and are reasonably estimable. If the reasonable estimate of the loss is a range and no amount within the range is a better estimate, the minimum amount of the range is recorded as a liability.

At July 31, 2014, the total amount accrued for all probable litigation losses where a reasonable estimate of the loss could be made was $5.0 million. This $5.0 million includes the accrual of $3.4 million in connection with an unfavorable arbitration decision against us relating to a contract dispute with a third-party administrator. In 2011, we engaged this third-party administrator to provide certain services under a workers’ compensation alternative dispute resolution program. Our contract with the third-party administrator provided that the administrator would be compensated on the basis of the percentage of savings realized by us under the program. We did not compensate this administrator since we believed that no savings were achieved, and the matter was submitted to binding arbitration under the terms of the contract. We have provided written comments to the award strongly objecting to the arbitrator’s decision.

We do not accrue for contingent losses that, in our judgment, are considered to be reasonably possible but not probable. Estimating reasonably possible losses also requires the analysis of multiple possible outcomes that often depend on judgments about potential actions by third parties. Management currently estimates that the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses for which an estimate can be made is between zero and $95.8 million, including the possible $94.2 million impact of the Augustus case described below. Factors underlying this estimated range of loss may change from time to time, and actual results may vary significantly from this estimate.

In some cases, although a loss is probable or reasonably possible, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential losses or the range of loss. Therefore, our accrual for probable losses and our estimated range of loss for reasonably possible losses do not represent our maximum possible exposure.

While the results of these proceedings, claims, and inquiries cannot be predicted with any certainty, management believes that the final outcome of the foregoing will not have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial statements, results of operations, or cash flows.

Certain Legal Proceedings

Certain pending lawsuits to which we are a party are discussed below. In determining whether to include any particular lawsuit or other proceeding, we consider both quantitative and qualitative factors, including, but not limited to: the amount of damages and the nature of any other relief sought in the proceeding; if such damages and other relief are specified, our view of the merits of the claims; whether the action purports to be a class action, and our view of the likelihood that a class will be certified by the court; the jurisdiction in which the proceeding is pending; and the potential impact of the proceeding on our reputation.

The Consolidated Cases of Augustus, Hall and Davis v. American Commercial Security Services, filed July 12, 2005, in the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Augustus case”)

The Augustus case is a certified class action involving allegations that we violated certain state laws relating to rest breaks. On February 8, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment on the rest break claim, which sought damages in the amount of $103.1 million, and we filed a motion for decertification of the class. On July 6, 2012, the Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County (the “Superior Court”), heard plaintiffs’ motion for damages on the rest break claim and our motion to decertify the class. On July 31, 2012, the Superior Court denied our motion and entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the amount of approximately $89.7 million. This $89.7 million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses described above. The $89.7 million amount did not include plaintiffs’ attorneys’ fees. We filed a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District (the “Appeals Court”) on August 29, 2012. The plaintiffs filed three separate motions for attorneys’ fees with the Superior Court. One motion sought attorneys’ fees from the common fund. (The common fund refers to the approximately $89.7 million judgment entered in favor of the plaintiffs.) The other two motions sought attorneys’ fees from us in an aggregate amount of approximately $12.4 million. On October 12, 2012, we filed oppositions to the two fee motions seeking attorneys’ fees from us with the Superior Court. On January 14, 2013, the Superior Court heard all three fee motions and it granted plaintiffs’ fee motion with respect to the common fund in full. The Superior Court denied one fee motion in its entirety and reduced the other fee motion to approximately $4.5 million. This $4.5 million is included in the range of loss for all reasonably possible losses described above. We have appealed the Superior Court’s rulings to the Appeals Court, and on April 30, 2013, the Appeals Court agreed to consolidate the appeals. We strongly disagree with the decisions of the Superior Court both with respect to the underlying case and with respect to the award of attorneys’ fees and costs. We firmly believe that we have complied with the applicable law.

Bojorquez v. ABM Industries Incorporated and ABM Janitorial Services–Northern California, Inc., filed on January 13, 2010, in the San Francisco Superior Court (the “Bojorquez case”)

We are a defendant in the Bojorquez case. Plaintiff brought suit for sexual harassment, retaliation, and failure to prevent harassment and discrimination. On May 17, 2012, a jury awarded the plaintiff approximately $0.8 million in damages. We have appealed this decision. On April 11, 2013, the Court awarded plaintiff attorneys’ fees in the amount of $2.5 million. If we prevail in our appeal of the jury’s verdict, the Court’s award of plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees will be reversed.

The Consolidated Cases of Bucio and Martinez v. ABM Janitorial Services filed on April 7, 2006, in the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco (the “Bucio case”)

The Bucio case is a purported class action involving allegations that we failed to track work time and provide breaks. On April 19, 2011, the trial court held a hearing on plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. At the conclusion of that hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs’ motion to certify the class. On May 11, 2011, the plaintiffs filed a motion to reconsider, which was denied. The plaintiffs have appealed the class certification issues. The trial court stayed the underlying lawsuit pending the decision in the appeal. On August 30, 2012, the plaintiffs filed their appellate brief on the class certification issues. We filed our responsive brief on November 15, 2012. Oral argument relating to the appeal has not been scheduled.

We expect to prevail in these ongoing cases. However, as litigation is inherently unpredictable, there can be no assurance in this regard. If the plaintiffs in one or more of these cases, or other cases, do prevail, the results may have a material effect on our financial position or cash flows.

Other

During October 2011, we began an internal investigation into matters relating to compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and our internal policies in connection with services provided by a foreign entity affiliated with a former joint venture partner of The Linc Group, LLC (“Linc”). Such services commenced prior to the acquisition of Linc. As a result of the investigation, we caused Linc to terminate its association with the arrangement. In December 2011, we contacted the U.S. Department of Justice and the SEC to voluntarily disclose the results of our internal investigation to date, and we are cooperating with the government’s investigation. We cannot reasonably estimate the potential liability, if any, related to these matters. However, based on the facts currently known, we do not believe that these matters will have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flows.