Case Explained: THOMAS E. OVERBY, JR v. ANHEUSER-BUSCH, LLC Defendant – Appellant —————————— CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Amicus Supporting Appellant NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; METROPOLITAN WASHINGTON EMPLOYMENT LAWYERS ASSOCIATION; NORTH CAROLINA ADVOCATES FOR JUSTICE; NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER; NATIONAL EMPLOYMENT LAW PROJECT; IMPACT FUND Amici Supporting

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Filed: 2026-06-15 The Fourth Circuit vacated the district court’s order certifying a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) and dismissed the appeal regarding the denial of decertification for the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) collective action. The court held that the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply the specific commonality and predominance requirements mandated by *Stafford v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc.*, 123 F.4th 671 (4th Cir. 2024). The court’s decision rests on the rule that class certification cannot rely on overly generalized company policies or abstract common questions that mask significant disparities among prospective class members. The Fourth Circuit found that the district court erred by defining the common question at too high a level—simply asking whether Anheuser-Busch failed to compensate for pre- and post-shift work—without accounting for substantial variations in employee circumstances. Specifically, the court identified three categories of individualized inquiries that defeated predominance: (1) whether class members actually performed specific mandatory tasks such as donning/doffing personal protective equipment (PPE), attending shift-handoff meetings, or complying with COVID-19 protocols; (2) where and when those tasks occurred, noting that some PPE was worn at home (potentially non-compensable commute time) while other tasks occurred during paid shift hours; and (3) the applicable legal standards, as Virginia’s Overtime Wage Act changed in July 2022 to mirror the FLSA, meaning different class members were subject to different liability rules depending on their employment dates. Additionally, the court ruled that the class definition was impermissibly overbroad because it included all hourly employees at the Williamsburg brewery without distinguishing between those who performed compensable off-shift work and those who did not. The practical consequence is that the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. On remand, the district court must either deny class certification or consider defining narrower subclasses based on specific job roles, time periods, or task types to ensure commonality and predominance are met, rather than proceeding with a single, sweeping class that would require numerous mini-trials. The appeal regarding the FLSA collective action was dismissed because the court lacked jurisdiction to review that specific interlocutory order under Rule 23(f). Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.