Federal Court Certifies Class Action Against Hannaford Bros.

Judge William G. Young of the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has granted class certification in a wage-and-hour case brought against supermarket chain Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC. The lawsuit is led by attorneys Stephen Churchill of Fair Work P.C. and Benjamin Knox Steffans of Steffans Legal PLLC against supermarket giant Hannaford Bros.

The named plaintiff, a former bakery department manager with 13 years of service at Hannaford, alleges that the company misclassified certain department managers in Massachusetts as exempt from overtime. As a result of this misclassification, the plaintiff claims that Hannaford failed to pay eligible employees premium wages for overtime, Sunday shifts, and work on specific protected holidays.

In a detailed ruling, the Court certified a class of current and former “fresh department managers” who worked for Hannaford in Massachusetts between January 12, 2018, and the present. The certified class includes:

• Bakery Sales Managers
• Deli Sales Managers
• Deli/Bakery Sales Managers
• Produce Sales Managers
• Meat Market Managers
• Meat Market/Seafood Sales Managers
• Deli/Seafood Managers

The Court held that the plaintiff had presented sufficient evidence that these department managers were similarly situated with respect to their legal claims and that their allegations involved common questions of law and fact. Judge Young emphasized that class certification was appropriate because all class members “have purportedly suffered an identical injury” stemming from the same alleged practice: misclassification as exempt employees.

The decision further noted that determining whether the employees’ “primary duty” qualifies as exempt work under wage-and-hour law is a common factual and legal question that can be resolved on a class-wide basis. Supporting this conclusion, the Court cited Hannaford’s own corporate materials — including training protocols, scheduling systems, pay data, and internal standards — as common evidence that could support adjudication across the entire class.

In rejecting Hannaford’s argument that differences in job duties precluded class certification, the Court concluded that those variations were not sufficient to undermine the relevance of the plaintiff’s common evidence or to prevent the case from proceeding as a class action.

The case is Judith Prinzo, et al. v. Hannaford Bros. Co., LLC, Case No. 1:21-cv-11901. A copy of hte court's decision on class certification is available below.‍

• Memorandum and Order