Nucor Corporation v. Quinton Brown, 760 F.3d 341

Plaintiffs brought a class action alleging racial discrimination against Nucor, including a promotions class and a hostile work environment class; the case has extensive prior appellate and district-court history.
The district court certified both classes in 2011 (the "certification order") and denied reconsideration.
Nucor filed multiple motions to decertify; the court partially decertified only the promotions class in a 2012 order but left the hostile work environment class intact.
Nucor sought interlocutory review previously and was denied; it later filed a fourth decertification motion challenging the hostile work environment class.
The district court again denied decertification of the hostile work environment class; Nucor petitioned for interlocutory review under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f).
The Fourth Circuit denied the petition as untimely, holding the Rule 23(f) clock ran from the original certification and denial of reconsideration and was not revived by later post-certification rulings that left class status unchanged.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nucor's petition for interlocutory review of the refusal to decertify the hostile work environment class is timely under Rule 23(f)	Plaintiffs (class) argued certification status had been settled and later denials did not reopen the Rule 23(f) window	Nucor argued later post-certification rulings (including its fourth decertification motion) justified a new Rule 23(f) appeal period or otherwise made the petition timely	Denied: the petition is untimely. The Rule 23(f) 14-day appeal period ran from the original certification order (and denial of reconsideration) and was not reset by subsequent orders that left class status unchanged

Brown v. Nucor Corp., 576 F.3d 149 (4th Cir.) (prior appellate decision in same litigation)
Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (U.S.) (significant recent Supreme Court class‑action jurisprudence referenced re: commonality and certification)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (U.S.) (addressed class‑wide damages methodology relevant to decertification arguments)
Scott v. Family Dollar Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105 (4th Cir.) (Rule 23(f) permits review of certification decisions)
Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307 (4th Cir.) (14‑day Rule 23(f) appeal period rule)
In re DC Water & Sewer Auth., 561 F.3d 494 (D.C. Cir.) (post‑certification rulings that do not change class status do not restart Rule 23(f) clock)
Fleischman v. Albany Med. Ctr., 639 F.3d 28 (2d Cir.) (deadline for Rule 23(f) appeals is rigid; subsequent motions cannot restart clock)
Carpenter v. Boeing Co., 456 F.3d 1183 (10th Cir.) (an order that leaves class status unchanged is not a new certification order)