By: Christina Jaremus, Alex Simon, and Noah Finkel
Seyfarth Synopsis: The Fourth Circuit tapped back in right where it left off in its late 2024 decision in Stafford v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc. There, it reversed class certification in a wage-and-hour class action involving shift managers at the southern-style fast-food chain who alleged they were required to perform various off-the-clock tasks (Seyfarth’s analysis of Bojangles is available here). On June 15, 2026, in Overby v. Anheuser-Busch, LLC, the Fourth Circuit doubled down on its skepticism of overbroad wage-and-hour classes, vacating a Rule 23 class of brewery workers alleging unpaid pre- and post-shift work. The Fourth Circuit’s message is familiar but sharper: high-level “common questions” and sweeping class definitions won’t survive where the underlying work realities vary.
The Setup: A “Uniform Policy” Case—On Paper
Plaintiffs—hourly employees at an Anheuser-Busch brewery—claimed the company failed to pay for pre- and post-shift work, including the donning and doffing of personal protective equipment, securing and putting away tools, COVID screening (for a time), and shift change meetings.
They pointed to the company’s policy of generally paying employees only for scheduled shift hours as well as mandatory health and safety requirements in effect during the COVID-19 pandemic until February 2022. Plaintiffs pursued state-law Rule 23 claims under the Virginia Wage Payment Act and Virginia Overtime Wage Act alongside an FLSA collective. The district court certified a sweeping class of all non-exempt employees at the Williamsburg brewery during the relevant time period. Plaintiffs argued this was all driven by a uniform compensation practice, in their view, a single brewing process applied across the workforce. The district court framed the common question at a high level: whether Anheuser-Busch failed to pay for mandatory pre- and post-shift work in violation of Virginia law. But the Fourth Circuit found that theory… a bit over-carbonated and ultimately tough to swallow.
The Holding: Flat Beer for the Plaintiffs’ Class Theory; Certification Vacated (and Bojangles Reinforced)
The Fourth Circuit vacated the class certification order, holding that the district court misapplied Rule 23’s commonality and predominance requirements by:
- Defining the common question “at too high a level”;
- Ignoring “substantial variance” across employees; and
- Certifying an overbroad, effectively circular class.
The opinion repeatedly invokes Bojangles, emphasizing that generalized policy-based theories cannot paper over workplace variability. “Relying solely on overly generalized company policies will typically defeat class-action certification because these formulations too often disguise the dissimilarity of prospective class members. The present case epitomizes this exact trap. In defining the common question at too high a level, the district court failed to observe the myriad variations in employees’ circumstances.” In short, the plaintiffs’ theory might have looked cohesive at first pour—but it couldn’t withstand a closer inspection.
Key Reasoning: Why This Class Went Flat
1. “Common Question” Framed Too Abstractly
The district court asked whether Anheuser-Busch failed to pay for required off-shift work. But the Fourth Circuit found that question functionally circular—it assumes what must be proven. Writing for the Court, Judge Wilkinson labeled this kind of high-altitude framing “semantic gerrymandering”: “One can always frame a question in such an abstract manner as to elicit a common response. But such semantic gerrymandering does not reflect the duties and obligations inherent in Rule 23.”
In an important doctrinal note, the panel reiterated that “commonality is a subfactor of predominance.” As applied here, answering the certified common question would have required the district court to first make individualized determinations, e.g., did the employee actually perform pre- or post-shift work at all? Was it required by the company? Did it occur outside the shift?
As the panel put it, “These questions have no common answer; they involve more particularized engagement with the record and reveal significant variation amongst prospective class members”—not exactly a recipe for a classwide keg.
2. The Record Was Fermenting with Variability
The court identified what it called “three different flavors” of variation that skunked predominance, including:
- Whether tasks were performed at all. Not all employees attended shift change meetings or performed the same duties. Not all employees worked during the period in which the company mandated COVID-19 health policies.
- Where/when tasks occurred. Did the employee don and doff protective equipment at home, on-site, or during the shift? The Fourth Circuit noted that putting on work boots before leaving the house generally isn’t compensable, and that some donning and shift change meetings occurred during shift hours — meaning Anheuser-Busch had already paid for them.
- Differences across roles and departments. PPE requirements and practices and job duties varied by position.
This variability meant liability would devolve into employee-by-employee mini-trials and was not suited for a clean classwide pour or even a consistent flight.
3. Legal Variability (Often Overlooked)
Adding another wrinkle, the governing law wasn’t consistent across the class. Specifically, Virginia’s overtime law materially changed in July 2022. Due to the relevant lookback period, some workers were subject to pre-amendment law, others post-amendment, and some both. That alone required individualized legal analysis before even reaching liability. So even if the facts aligned (they didn’t), the legal framework didn’t. That’s not a single brew—it’s multiple recipes on entirely different taps.
4. Overbroad (and “Circular”) Class Definition
The certified class “effectively encompasses all hourly employees at the brewery, with no caveat whatsoever,” regardless of whether they performed any uncompensated work, were subject to the same policies, and/or were subject to the same legal standards. The Fourth Circuit called this out as a “circular class definition” that presumes liability and masks differences, a label that promises more than what’s actually in the glass.
5. Damages Couldn’t Save It
Although individualized damages issues alone do not defeat certification, the court made clear that common liability must be established before reaching the damages phase. Statistical proof (a Tyson Foods approach) only works where underlying conduct is sufficiently uniform.
A Notable Side Pour: FLSA Collective Untouched
The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal as to the FLSA collective decertification issue, declining to extend Rule 23(f) review to that question. That leaves a familiar tension in that the Rule 23 class did not hold up, but the collective action under the FLSA remains on tap and still flowing, at least for now.
Practical Takeaways: What Employers Should Tap Into
Bojangles Is Now Fully on Draft. First the chicken, now the beer: Overby confirms that Bojangles is not a one-off. The Fourth Circuit is actively policing overgeneralized “policy” theories, abstract common questions, and failure to grapple with record-level variability.
Let the Variability Ferment. Even where a company has centralized pay practices, shared onboarding, or safety requirements, those facts alone won’t carry certification if actual work practices diverge. The winning strategy (again) centered on evidence that employees differed in tasks performed, timing and location of work, and job duties and departments. Employers should expect courts to demand this granular showing at the class certification stage. Employers also are well-advised not to overlook legal variability. Changes in statutes, regulations, and time periods relevant to a law can also independently defeat predominance even if the facts were uniform (although they were not in Overby).
Class Definitions Need to Be Crisp, Not Cloudy. Hazy, sweeping class definitions that track liability theories and include workers who have no plausible claim will draw scrutiny as “circular” and overbroad. The court floated subclasses as a potential path forward—but emphasized that each subclass must independently satisfy Rule 23.
Bottom Line: Bojangles fired up the kettle, and Overby kept the wort boiling. The Fourth Circuit is sending a consistent signal: Rule 23 certification in wage-and-hour cases requires more than a shared theory of underpayment—it demands genuinely common proof. Where liability hinges on who did what, when, and under which rules, the class action model starts to lose its kick and may go flat before it ever reaches the bar.