September 30, 2025|Publications
September 30, 2025 | United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia | Published Opinion
Executive Summary
In a comprehensive opinion issued September 30, 2025, Senior Judge James P. Jones of the Western District of Virginia denied motions by Jennmar Corporation of Virginia, Inc. (“Jennmar”) to decertify both an FLSA collective and a Rule 23 state-law class in a wage-and-hour action brought by two hourly employees. The plaintiffs alleged that Jennmar’s time-rounding and pre-shift safety policies caused systemic underpayment across multiple facilities. Citing Stafford v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., 123 F.4th 671 (4th Cir. 2024), Jennmar argued that class certification was improper because individualized inquiries predominated. The court disagreed, finding the claims “sufficiently distinguishable” from Bojangles and holding that the plaintiffs demonstrated common questions suitable for classwide resolution. The opinion underscores the continuing viability of hybrid FLSA and Rule 23 wage actions even after Bojangles, where plaintiffs identify uniform corporate pay practices.
Relevant Background
Jennmar manufactures and assembles products for the construction, energy, and mining industries. Stacy v. Jennmar Corp. of Va., Inc., No. 1:21CV00015, 2025 WL 2795303, at *1 (W.D. Va. Sept. 30, 2025). The plaintiffs, Charlie Stacy and Clifford Allen, are current and former hourly employees who alleged that Jennmar’s timekeeping and rounding policies systematically deprived them—and other hourly workers—of approximately twenty minutes of compensable work per shift. They also alleged that mandatory safety and housekeeping duties were performed before clock-in, resulting in uncompensated “off-the-clock” labor. Id. Jennmar denied any wrongdoing, asserting that its policies prohibit off-the-clock work and that any uncompensated time was de minimis.
The plaintiffs brought both a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”), 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), and a parallel state-law class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 based on alleged violations of the Virginia Wage Payment Act. In 2021, the court conditionally certified the FLSA collective, Stacy v. Jennmar Corp. of Va., No. 1:21CV00015, 2021 WL 4787278 (W.D. Va. Oct. 14, 2021), and, in 2022, certified the Rule 23 class, Stacy v. Jennmar Corp. of Va., No. 1:21CV00015, 2022 WL 1442247 (W.D. Va. May 6, 2022). Following discovery, Jennmar moved to decertify both classes and for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to show a unified policy or practice and that the case presented too many individualized issues.
The plaintiffs opposed decertification, asserting that the same rounding and pre-shift practices applied to all hourly employees across multiple facilities and that centralized timekeeping policies made collective adjudication appropriate. The plaintiffs also moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that the company’s rounding practices were not neutral and that all affiliated entities functioned as a joint enterprise under the FLSA.
Decision
Judge Jones declined to decertify either the FLSA collective or the Rule 23 class. Applying the two-stage analysis recognized in Mendoza v. Baird Drywall & Acoustic, Inc., No. 7:19-CV-882, 2021 WL 2435873, at *3 (W.D. Va. June 15, 2021), the court reaffirmed that once discovery is complete, the “heightened fact-specific standard” applies to determine whether plaintiffs are “similarly situated.” Stacy, 2025 WL 2795303, at *2. The court found that the plaintiffs “identified key facts to demonstrate a similar employment setting,” including that “Jennmar has a written timekeeping policy,” that “the timekeeping and compensation policies for hourly work, including the rounding policy, are applicable to all hourly employees,” and that “the plaintiffs could not perform all demands and duties within their assigned shifts.” Id.
The court further held that fairness and procedural considerations favored continued certification, quoting Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165, 170 (1989), for the principle that collective actions “allow plaintiffs the advantage of lower individual costs to vindicate rights by the pooling of resources” and promote judicial efficiency. Id. Judge Jones concluded that even if the named plaintiffs’ knowledge was limited to one facility, “their knowledge reflects policies applicable across Jennmar’s facilities.” Id. Accordingly, he denied decertification under § 216(b).
Turning to the Rule 23 class, Jennmar relied heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Stafford v. Bojangles’ Restaurants, Inc., 123 F.4th 671 (4th Cir. 2024), where the court vacated certification of overly broad classes that did not define the type of off-the-clock work at issue. Jennmar argued that Bojangles required decertification because the class definition here similarly lacked specificity and because individual managers oversaw different manufacturing facilities. Stacy, 2025 WL 2795303, at *3. Judge Jones disagreed, finding that “the present facts [were] sufficiently distinguishable.” Id.
In Bojangles, the classes covered “all shift managers” in two states without reference to whether they performed off-the-clock work. 123 F.4th at 681. By contrast, the Stacy class alleged that Jennmar’s “rounding practice violated Virginia law because, over time, hourly employees would not be compensated for all hours actually worked.” Stacy, 2025 WL 2795303, at *3 (quoting Stacy, 2022 WL 1442247, at *5). The court found that this common contention was capable of classwide resolution and satisfied the predominance requirement of Rule 23(b)(3). The opinion emphasized that “subtle differences that Jennmar cited to—including different facilities manufacturing different products or being operated by separate management—did not predominate over the common questions of law or fact.” Id.
Having denied decertification, the court also declined to exclude the testimony of Jennmar’s statistical expert, denied summary judgment on all core claims, and partially granted the plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions related to improper ex parte communications with represented class members. Id. at *4–6.
Looking Forward
Stacy v. Jennmar demonstrates that, even after Bojangles, courts may sustain hybrid FLSA and Rule 23 wage actions where plaintiffs identify a uniform corporate policy affecting pay practices. The opinion suggests that Bojangles did not categorically narrow collective certification but instead reinforced the need for well-defined classes tethered to a specific challenged policy. For franchisors and multi-unit operators, the case highlights how consistency in timekeeping or rounding systems—while operationally efficient—can also serve as the “common thread” supporting class treatment.
Franchisors should ensure that their franchisees’ payroll or scheduling systems are genuinely independent and compliant with applicable wage laws. Where a brand imposes uniform timekeeping requirements or mandates shared payroll platforms, plaintiffs may attempt to analogize those structures to the company-wide rounding policy at issue in Jennmar. Although such similarities do not automatically establish joint liability, they may strengthen plaintiffs’ arguments for certification.
The decision also illustrates the importance of maintaining accurate policy documentation and local discretion in timekeeping enforcement. Courts may be reluctant to decertify when a single written policy appears to govern pay for all hourly employees. Ultimately, Jennmar signals that hybrid class and collective litigation remains a powerful procedural tool in wage-and-hour law, and franchisors should continue to monitor developments in how courts interpret Bojangles in operationally integrated systems.
This article is based solely on the opinion of the Court in this matter. The author has not conducted any independent investigation into the facts. For the avoidance of doubt, each statement related to the law and facts in this article is drawn from the Court’s opinion in this case.
Thomas O’Connell is a Shareholder at Buchalter APC and Chair of the firm’s Franchise Practice Group. For questions about this article or media inquiries, you can contact Tom at toconnell@buchalter.com.
This communication is not intended to create or constitute, nor does it create or constitute, an attorney-client or any other legal relationship. No statement in this communication constitutes legal advice nor should any communication herein be construed, relied upon, or interpreted as legal advice. This communication is for general information purposes only regarding recent legal developments of interest, and is not a substitute for legal counsel on any subject matter. No reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any information included herein without seeking appropriate legal advice on the particular facts and circumstances affecting that reader. For more information, visit www.buchalter.com.
