Navy Federal Class Action Lawsuit Claims Call Center Workers Were Not Paid for Computer Login Time

A former Navy Federal Credit Union call center employee has filed a putative class and collective action in federal court. She alleges that hourly customer service representatives had to boot up computers, log into Microsoft Windows and load work applications before they were allowed to clock in, and that the time went unpaid.

The case is Jordan v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:26-cv-03580, filed October 27, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiff, Heidi Jordan, says the pre-shift routine took roughly 15 to 30 minutes or more every workday.

Here is where things stand. No class has been certified. No settlement has been announced. There is no claim form and no payment deadline. The allegations are unproven, and Navy Federal’s formal response has not been verified.

If you worked as an hourly Navy Federal customer service representative, keep reading. The sections below explain the allegations, the federal wage laws involved, who might be covered, how an FLSA opt-in works and what records are worth keeping.

Navy Federal Putative Class Action: Quick Facts

Detail	Information
Case name	Jordan v. Navy Federal Credit Union
Case number	1:26-cv-03580
Court	U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia
Filed	October 27, 2026
Named plaintiff	Heidi Jordan
Defendant	Navy Federal Credit Union
Judge	District Judge Rossie D. Alston Jr. (Magistrate Judge William B. Porter listed as referring judicial officer)
Main allegation	Unpaid pre-shift computer startup and login time
Other alleged unpaid time	Logging back in before unpaid meal breaks ended; closing applications after clocking out
Alleged unpaid time	Approximately 15 to 30 minutes or more per workday (pre-shift)
Federal law	Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
Other claims reported	Breach of contract; unjust enrichment
Plaintiff’s attorneys	Matthew T. Sutter (Sutter & Terpak PLLC); Jesse L. Young and Jacob R. Rusch (Sommers Schwartz P.C.)
Class certified?	No
FLSA collective conditionally certified?	No
Settlement announced?	No
Official settlement website	None. No settlement or administrator exists for this case
Claim form	None verified
Payment deadline	None announced

The public docket shows the original complaint, a proposed summons and a summons issued on October 27, 2026.

Why Is Navy Federal Credit Union Being Sued by a Former Call Center Employee?

The lawsuit is about a familiar workplace setup: the employer expects you to be ready to work the second your shift starts, but the paid clock only begins after the computer is ready.

A call center representative can’t just sit down and answer the phone. The workstation has to start, the account has to authenticate, and the customer and phone systems have to load. According to the November 6, 2026 Top Class Actions report on the complaint, Jordan worked as an hourly credit card specialist from about October 2010 through June 2025.

She alleges that Navy Federal representatives at its Florida and Virginia call centers got similar training and worked under common policies. They were expected to be ready for calls the moment their scheduled shifts began, yet they could not clock in until their computers and required applications were fully loaded.

That is the gap at the heart of Jordan v. Navy Federal Credit Union: required work allegedly happening before paid time began.

What Work Did Navy Federal Employees Allegedly Do Without Pay?

Based on the published description of the complaint, the alleged unpaid activities include:

1. Turning on work computers and waiting for the operating system to become usable.
2. Logging into Microsoft Windows to reach the workstation.
3. Opening Webex and Avaya, which the lawsuit reportedly names among the required applications.
4. Loading other customer service programs needed to handle calls.
5. Logging back in before unpaid meal breaks ended, so they were ready when the break was scheduled to finish.
6. Closing work applications after clocking out.

An employer generally can’t avoid paying for compensable work just by scheduling it outside the recorded shift. Whether these steps count as compensable work here is what the court will have to decide.

How Much Unpaid Time Does the Navy Federal Lawsuit Allege?

The plaintiff estimates the pre-shift computer preparation alone took about 15 to 30 minutes or more each workday. The extra time spent before meal breaks ended and after clocking out is described as additional.

Because many representatives allegedly worked about 40 hours a week on the clock, the lawsuit argues the unrecorded time pushed real working hours past 40.

Here is an illustration only, not a prediction of anyone’s recovery:

• 15 minutes a day over a five-day week = 75 minutes (1 hour 15 minutes)
• 20 minutes a day over a five-day week = 100 minutes (1 hour 40 minutes)
• 30 minutes a day over a five-day week = 150 minutes (2 hours 30 minutes)

At 20 minutes a day, that is about 86.7 hours over 52 weeks. If those hours were all overtime for an employee earning $20 an hour, the overtime rate would be $30 an hour, or roughly $2,600 in unpaid overtime for the year. With an equal amount in liquidated damages, the potential figure would be $5,200 before fees and costs.

Real outcomes depend on actual hours, pay rates, proof, the limitations period and legal defenses. Many employees would not reach that number, and some might not qualify at all.

Which Federal Wage Laws Apply to the Navy Federal Call Center Lawsuit?

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA): The Core of the Case

The FLSA sets federal minimum wage, overtime and recordkeeping rules for covered, nonexempt employees.

29 U.S.C. § 206 (minimum wage). Covered employees must receive at least the federal minimum wage for all compensable hours. Unpaid time can drag effective pay below that floor.

29 U.S.C. § 207 (overtime). Covered, nonexempt employees must be paid at least one and a half times their regular rate for hours worked over 40 in a workweek. Overtime is measured by hours actually worked, not by what a timecard shows.

29 U.S.C. § 203(g) (“employ” and “suffer or permit to work”). The FLSA defines “employ” to include “suffer or permit to work.” Federal regulations (29 C.F.R. §§ 785.11 to 785.13) say that work the employer knows about or allows is working time, even if the employer did not specifically ask for it.

29 U.S.C. § 211(c) and 29 C.F.R. Part 516 (records). Employers must keep accurate records of hours worked. This matters in Navy Federal’s case because the alleged login time happened before the timeclock started.

29 U.S.C. § 215(a)(3) (anti-retaliation). It is unlawful to fire or discriminate against an employee for filing an FLSA complaint or taking part in an FLSA proceeding. Current Navy Federal employees who want to participate are protected by this provision.

29 C.F.R. Part 785: What Counts as Working Time

The Department of Labor’s hours-worked rules are central to this dispute:

• 29 C.F.R. § 785.18 (rest periods): short breaks, generally 5 to 20 minutes, are working time and must be paid.
• 29 C.F.R. § 785.19 (meal periods): a bona fide meal period, typically 30 minutes or more, doesn’t have to be paid only if the employee is completely relieved of duty. If an employee has to do work during the meal period, such as logging back in early, that time may be compensable.
• 29 C.F.R. § 785.47 (de minimis time): very small, irregular amounts of time that are hard to record may be disregarded. Courts weigh how practical it is to record the time, how much it adds up to in total and how regularly it happens. Navy Federal could raise this defense, but 15 to 30 minutes every workday is the kind of regular, measurable time that is hard to call trivial.
• 29 C.F.R. § 785.48 (timeclock rules and rounding): rounding practices are only acceptable if they average out over time and don’t consistently undercount hours worked. Requiring employees to complete work before the clock starts is a different matter from ordinary rounding.

U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet #64 on Call Centers

The Department of Labor’s Fact Sheet #64, Call Centers Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (revised July 2008), speaks directly to this issue. It gives starting a computer to download work instructions, applications and work emails as an example of a call center employee’s first principal activity of the day.

The same fact sheet explains that short rest periods ordinarily count as paid time, that a bona fide meal period generally need not be paid if the employee is fully relieved of duty, and that employers must keep records of pre-shift and post-shift activities.

Fact Sheet #64 is agency guidance, not a court ruling. It does not decide whether Navy Federal broke the law, but courts often look to it, and it closely tracks the activities Jordan describes.

Portal-to-Portal Act (29 U.S.C. § 254): Navy Federal’s Likely Argument

The Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C. § 254(a), generally excludes “preliminary” and “postliminary” activities, such as an ordinary commute, from compensable time. Activities that are an integral and indispensable part of an employee’s principal work are not excluded.

Navy Federal may argue that booting up and logging in is preliminary. Jordan will argue it is the first step of the job itself.

Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014). The Supreme Court held that post-shift security screenings were not compensable. The Court said an activity is integral and indispensable only if it is an intrinsic element of the principal activities and one the employee cannot dispense with if he is to perform them. Being required by the employer, or benefiting the employer, is not enough. Logging in to the very systems a representative uses to take calls looks different from walking through a security line, but the court in this case will make that call.

Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956), and IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005). These cases support the “continuous workday” idea. Once an employee begins the first principal activity of the day, time between that activity and the last one is generally compensable. That is why the Department of Labor treats the start of the computer as the start of the call center workday.

Proving Unpaid Time: Mt. Clemens and Tyson Foods

If an employer didn’t keep accurate records, the Supreme Court has made proof easier for employees. Under Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946), an employee can meet the burden by showing the work was performed and offering a reasonable estimate of the time. The burden then shifts to the employer to disprove it.

In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016), the Court allowed representative evidence, such as an expert’s average-time study, to establish classwide liability when records were missing. This is likely to matter when pre-shift login time was never recorded.

Can Navy Federal Owe Double Damages Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b)?

Possibly, if the plaintiff proves an FLSA violation. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), an employer that violates the minimum wage or overtime rules is liable for:

• Unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation
• An equal additional amount as liquidated damages
• Reasonable attorney fees and court costs

Liquidated damages are the default remedy, not something that must be proven “willful.” Under 29 U.S.C. § 260, however, a court can reduce or deny them if the employer shows it acted in good faith and had reasonable grounds to believe its pay practices complied with the FLSA. Navy Federal could raise that defense.

Willfulness is a different issue. It affects the limitations period, covered below.

What Other Claims Does the Navy Federal Lawsuit Make?

The published report says the complaint also includes breach of contract and unjust enrichment.

Breach of contract. The question is whether an enforceable agreement existed, what pay it promised and whether Navy Federal failed to perform. The specific contract theory has to be checked against the complaint itself.

Unjust enrichment. This equitable theory asks whether Navy Federal received a benefit from unpaid work in circumstances where it would be unfair to keep it. Courts often limit unjust enrichment when a valid contract already covers the same subject.

State wage laws. The reported complaint is not described as pleading state wage statutes, but they could matter depending on where an employee worked. Virginia has the Virginia Wage Payment Act (Va. Code § 40.1-29) and the Virginia Overtime Wage Act (Va. Code § 40.1-29.2). Florida’s minimum wage is set by Fla. Stat. § 448.110 and Article X, Section 24 of the Florida Constitution. Whether any state-law claim is in this case depends on the actual complaint.

None of these claims has been decided by a court.

Who Could Be Included in the Navy Federal Class and Collective Action?

The plaintiff reportedly seeks two kinds of proposed group:

1. An FLSA collective of current and former hourly customer service representatives, and similar employees, who worked for Navy Federal during the three years before filing through judgment.
2. A Rule 23 class of similarly situated workers under the applicable state-law or contract claims.

These are proposed groups, not court-approved definitions. The exact wording must be checked against the complaint.

Former Navy Federal employees. They are not automatically excluded. Someone who no longer works at Navy Federal may still have an FLSA claim if they did compensable work for which they were not paid. Dates of employment, job duties, timekeeping practices and limitations periods all matter.

Every Navy Federal employee? No. The allegations focus on hourly customer service representatives and similar call center roles. Salaried staff, exempt employees and workers in unrelated jobs should not assume they are covered.

Florida and Virginia call centers. The allegations name call center employees in those two states. The FLSA applies nationwide, but the proposed group definitions decide who this particular case covers.

Is There a Navy Federal Wage Theft Settlement or Claim Form?

No. No settlement has been verified in Jordan v. Navy Federal Credit Union. There is no settlement amount, administrator, settlement website, claim form, payment formula, claim deadline or court-approved payment schedule.

Be careful with any website or ad promising a guaranteed Navy Federal payout based on this case. A newly filed lawsuit is not a settlement.

Do Navy Federal Employees Have to Opt In to the FLSA Collective Action?

The two kinds of group work very differently.

FLSA collective action (29 U.S.C. § 216(b)). Employees must give written consent to become part of the case. This is called opting in. If you don’t file a consent, you are generally not a party and will not share in any recovery.

Rule 23 class action (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23). Members of a certified class are generally included automatically unless they opt out, after the court approves notice.

Courts can approve notice to similarly situated workers in FLSA cases. In Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989), the Supreme Court confirmed that district courts have discretion to facilitate notice. No court-approved notice or official opt-in process has been verified in the Navy Federal case.

Do not assume that filling out a form on an unrelated website makes you a party to the federal case.

How Long Do Navy Federal Employees Have to File an FLSA Claim?

Under 29 U.S.C. § 255(a), an FLSA claim must generally be brought within:

• Two years after the claim arose, for ordinary violations
• Three years for willful violations

A violation is willful if the employer knew its conduct was prohibited or showed reckless disregard for whether it was. The three-year period doesn’t apply automatically just because a complaint alleges it.

There is a trap for collective actions. Under 29 U.S.C. § 256, the clock for an opt-in plaintiff generally keeps running until that person’s written consent is filed with the court. Waiting for the case to finish can mean losing part of a claim. Anyone who thinks they may have a claim should get advice about their own deadline.

Could Arbitration Agreements Affect the Navy Federal Lawsuit?

Possibly. In Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018), the Supreme Court held that employment agreements requiring individual arbitration, with class and collective waivers, are enforceable under the Federal Arbitration Act. If Navy Federal employees signed such agreements, the company may try to move individual claims to arbitration. Whether any agreement exists, and whether it covers these claims, has not been established in the sources reviewed. This is one reason the scope of any eventual group is uncertain.

What Records Should Navy Federal Employees Keep?

If you think you did unpaid work, these may help:

1. Pay stubs showing recorded hours and pay
2. Work schedules with shift start and end times
3. Personal notes on when computer startup began and when you could clock in
4. Messages or instructions requiring you to be ready for calls at the start of your shift
5. Documents about meal break schedules or early login requirements
6. Records of overtime and schedule-adherence warnings
7. Employment policies and timekeeping instructions

Keep records lawfully. Do not take confidential customer information, account credentials or proprietary business data.

What Was the 2014 Navy Federal Off-the-Clock Lawsuit?

This isn’t the first reported wage case against Navy Federal. In May 2014, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported that a member services representative named Anthony Lee had filed a federal suit accusing the credit union of making employees work off the clock before and after shifts. The suit reportedly alleged 30 to 45 minutes of unpaid time per shift and reduced overtime pay.

According to the report, a Navy Federal spokesperson said the company took the claim seriously and was looking into it.

The 2014 case and the 2026 Jordan case are separate. The outcome of the 2014 case has not been verified, and the earlier report proves nothing about the current allegations. The similarity is still worth noting, since both involve claims of work outside recorded shifts.

How Does the Navy Federal Lawsuit Compare With Other Call Center Wage Cases?

Computer login time has become a recurring wage-and-hour issue in call center litigation. AllAboutLawyer.com has covered related cases:

• Regions Bank and Fifth Third Bancorp: Former call center employees filed separate lawsuits alleging unpaid computer setup and network access time. Read: Regions Bank and Fifth Third Bancorp Lawsuits, Call Center Workers Allege Unpaid Wages for Computer Login Time
• Discover Financial Services: A $15 million settlement addressed allegations of unpaid login and logout time for hourly call center employees. Read: 15M Discover Call Center Unpaid Wages Settlement, Did You Work Their Call Center Between 2021 and 2025?
• Walmart: Former employees alleged unpaid work before and after shifts, interrupted meal periods and overtime violations. Read: Walmart Wage Theft Lawsuit, Employees Allege Off-the-Clock Work, Unpaid Meetings and Interrupted Lunch Breaks

Those cases involve different companies, facts and courts. They don’t prove anything about Navy Federal. They show why unpaid startup time is a live issue.

What Happens Next in Jordan v. Navy Federal Credit Union?

The case is at an early stage. Possible steps include:

1. Service of process: Navy Federal must be properly served with the complaint and summons.
2. Response: Navy Federal may answer or file a motion, including a motion to dismiss or to compel arbitration.
3. Pleading disputes: The court may decide whether each claim is adequately stated.
4. Discovery: Timekeeping data, schedules, login records, policies and communications may be exchanged.
5. FLSA collective proceedings: Jordan may ask the court to authorize notice to similarly situated employees.
6. Rule 23 certification: She may later seek to certify the class claims.
7. Settlement or trial: The parties may settle or continue to litigate.

These are possible stages, not scheduled events. To check the latest activity, search Case No. 1:26-cv-03580 on PACER or the Eastern District of Virginia docket.

Frequently Asked Questions About the Navy Federal Class Action Lawsuit

Is there a Navy Federal class action lawsuit in 2026?

Yes. Heidi Jordan filed Jordan v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:26-cv-03580, on October 27, 2026, in the Eastern District of Virginia. It is a putative class and collective action, meaning no class has been certified.

Why was Navy Federal sued by a former call center employee?

The plaintiff alleges Navy Federal didn’t pay hourly call center representatives for required computer startup and login time, certain meal-break login time and post-shift closing activities.

How much unpaid time does the Navy Federal lawsuit allege?

About 15 to 30 minutes or more of pre-shift preparation each workday, plus other alleged unpaid activities.

Does the Navy Federal lawsuit involve unpaid overtime under the FLSA?

Yes. The plaintiff alleges that the unrecorded time resulted in unpaid overtime for employees who worked more than 40 hours in a workweek, in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 207.

Can former Navy Federal employees join the lawsuit?

Possibly, depending on the final group definitions, job duties, employment dates and limitations periods. Former employees are not automatically excluded.

Is the Navy Federal class action certified?

No. No class certification or conditional collective certification has been verified.

Is there a Navy Federal settlement claim form?

No. No settlement, administrator or claim form has been verified for this case.

Do I have to opt in to the Navy Federal FLSA collective action?

For the FLSA part, generally yes. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), you must file written consent to become a party. No official opt-in process has been verified yet.

What did the Department of Labor say about call center computer startup time?

Fact Sheet #64 treats starting a computer to download work instructions, applications and work emails as an example of a call center employee’s first principal activity of the day.

Can Navy Federal employees recover double damages?

Possibly. Under 29 U.S.C. § 216(b), liquidated damages equal to unpaid wages are the default if a violation is proven, unless Navy Federal shows good faith under 29 U.S.C. § 260.

Does the Navy Federal lawsuit affect Navy Federal members’ accounts?

No. The reported claims concern employee pay, not member fees, accounts or deposits.

Sources and Legal References

1. U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia, Jordan v. Navy Federal Credit Union, Case No. 1:26-cv-03580 (filed October 27, 2026). Public docket
2. Top Class Actions, “Call center worker alleges wage theft in Navy Federal class action lawsuit,” November 6, 2026. Report
3. U.S. Department of Labor, Fact Sheet #64: Call Centers Under the FLSA
4. 29 U.S.C. § 206, § 207, § 211, § 216, § 254, § 255, § 256, § 260
5. 29 C.F.R. Part 785, Hours Worked
6. Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 574 U.S. 27 (2014). Opinion
7. IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21 (2005); Steiner v. Mitchell, 350 U.S. 247 (1956); Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680 (1946); Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Sperling, 493 U.S. 165 (1989); Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo, 577 U.S. 442 (2016); Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 584 U.S. 497 (2018)
8. Las Vegas Review-Journal, “Suit filed against Navy Federal Credit Union claims ‘off-the-clock’ work went unpaid,” May 27, 2014. Report

Disclaimer

This article is for information only and is not legal advice. AllAboutLawyer.com is an independent legal information publisher, not a law firm. The allegations have not been proven in court. Your rights and deadlines depend on your own facts and the law that applies to you.

Researched and written by Israr Ahmad, legal content researcher and founder of AllAboutLawyer.com. All facts verified against the federal court docket (Justia), the Top Class Actions report on the complaint, U.S. Department of Labor Fact Sheet #64 and the cited federal statutes and regulations, as of November 7, 2026. Last Updated: November 7, 2026.