Dunkin’ lawsuits over the past several years have covered disability discrimination, hot coffee burns, wage theft, hidden fees, false advertising, and trademark infringement. The biggest headline case, a federal class action attacking the chain’s non-dairy milk surcharge under the Americans with Disabilities Act, was dismissed in April 2025 after Dunkin’ scrapped the upcharge. Elsewhere, franchisees have paid millions in restitution to New York City workers and hundreds of thousands to burn victims and employees with disabilities, while the corporate parent has repeatedly avoided liability by pointing to its franchise structure.
The Non-Dairy Milk Class Action
On December 26, 2023, ten customers filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California claiming that Dunkin’ discriminated against people with lactose intolerance and dairy allergies by charging between $0.50 and $2.15 extra for soy, almond, coconut, and oat milk.1Daily Coffee News. Dunkin Facing Class Action Suit Over Non-Dairy Milk Pricing Lead plaintiff Chelsea Garland and nine co-plaintiffs from California, New York, Hawaii, Colorado, Massachusetts, and Texas argued that the surcharge was an illegal fee on disabled customers under Title III of the ADA, which bars public accommodations from imposing surcharges to cover the cost of required modifications.2UCLA Law Review. Got Non-Dairy Milk? They sought at least $5 million in damages. The complaint noted that Dunkin’ accommodates other dietary needs — such as sugar-free sweeteners for diabetic customers — without charging extra.3ABC7 New York. Dunkin Donuts Class Action Lawsuit Over Nondairy Milks
Dunkin’ moved to dismiss in March 2024. It argued that its franchise structure meant it was not a “place of public accommodation,” that the plaintiffs had not adequately shown their conditions were disabilities, that no customer had notified staff of a disability or asked for an accommodation, and that the surcharge applied identically to every customer ordering non-dairy milk regardless of medical condition.2UCLA Law Review. Got Non-Dairy Milk?
On April 21, 2025, Judge Susan Illston granted the motion. She ruled the non-California plaintiffs’ claims had to be tossed for lack of personal jurisdiction and held that a fee applied to every customer, disabled or not, does not qualify as a discriminatory surcharge under existing ADA precedent.4Bloomberg Law. Dunkin’s Alternative Milk Fee Not Discrimination, Court Says The non-California claims were dismissed without prejudice; the federal ADA claim was dismissed on the merits.5The Brooks Institute. Garland et al v. Dunkin Donuts Order
Weeks before the ruling, Dunkin’ announced it would drop the upcharge. Starting March 5, 2025, oat, almond, soy, and coconut milk became standard options at no extra cost across more than 9,500 U.S. locations. A spokesperson for parent company Inspire Brands attributed the change to “guest feedback” rather than the litigation.6Today. Dunkin Ends Upcharge for Nondairy Milk
Hot Coffee Burn Cases
In February 2021, 70-year-old Alpana Joshi, a recently retired federal employee, ordered coffee from the drive-thru at a Dunkin’ in Sugar Hill, Georgia. According to her lawsuit, the employee handed her the cup with an improperly secured lid, and the coffee spilled onto her lap. Joshi suffered second- and third-degree burns to her thighs, groin, and abdomen, spent weeks in the burn unit at Grady Health in Atlanta, underwent extensive skin grafts, and had to relearn how to walk.7Fox 5 Atlanta. Atlanta Woman Receives $3M Settlement After Hot Coffee Spill at Dunkin in Sugar Hill She incurred more than $200,000 in medical bills and reported chronic pain.8Fox Business. Georgia Woman Wins Settlement Over Hot Coffee Spill at Dunkin The case, filed in the State Court of Gwinnett County against franchisee Golden Donuts, LLC, settled for $3 million.9Expert Institute. Dunkin Franchisee Will Pay $3M Over Spilled Coffee
A similar suit is pending in Connecticut. Wendell Johnson of Danbury sued in New London Superior Court in December 2025, alleging that on July 1, 2025, at a Dunkin’ drive-thru in Niantic, an employee delivered coffee with an improperly secured lid. When Johnson tried to place the cup in his center console, the lid dislodged and the coffee scalded his right side. He claims second-degree burns, permanent disfigurement, and scarring, and seeks damages over $15,000.10CT Insider. Niantic Dunkin Hot Coffee Lawsuit The defendants are franchisee Stonington Foods LLC, Dunkin’ Brands, Inc., and Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC. As of mid-2026, the case is in discovery.11Trellis Law. Johnson, Wendell v. Stonington Foods LLC
New York City Fair Workweek Actions
In March 2026, the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection announced two enforcement actions against Dunkin’ franchisees under the city’s Fair Workweek Law. That law requires fast-food employers to give workers schedules at least 14 days in advance, obtain consent for changes, and pay premiums for “clopening” shifts where an employee closes a store one night and opens it the next morning.
After a two-year investigation, DCWP found that Salz Management LLC, which runs 24 Dunkin’ and Taco Bell locations in Manhattan and Queens, changed schedules without notice or consent, failed to pay clopening premiums, and did not offer new shifts to existing employees before hiring outside staff.12The City. Dunkin Donuts Settlement Over Fair Workweek Law Violations Salz agreed to pay more than $1.5 million in restitution to roughly 760 workers and $155,000 in civil penalties.13NYC Mayor’s Office. Mamdani Administration Secures Nearly $2M in Restitution for 800 Workers Some eligible employees will receive as much as $7,000, distributed automatically without a claims process starting in 2026.14PIX11. Dunkin Taco Bell Franchisee Must Pay $1.5M Back to NYC Workers
On the same day, DCWP filed an enforcement petition against a second franchisee, QSR Management LLC, and its managing officer Ronny Nader, alleging Fair Workweek Law and Protected Time Off Law violations at 21 Dunkin’ locations on Staten Island affecting roughly 1,000 workers. Investigators identified thousands of scheduling violations going back to 2020.15Documented. Mamdani Cites Dunkin Franchise Owner for Allegedly Violating Workers’ Rights Workers are entitled to $200 to $500 per violation. QSR previously resolved a 2022 case involving a single location by paying $187,000 for 112 workers.13NYC Mayor’s Office. Mamdani Administration Secures Nearly $2M in Restitution for 800 Workers The petition is pending at the city’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings.
EEOC Disability Discrimination Settlement
In June 2026, a group of Dunkin’ franchisees in southeastern Massachusetts settled a disability discrimination suit brought by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The case targeted The Daly/Kenney Group, LLC and 15 related companies operating Dunkin’ restaurants in New Bedford and Fairhaven. According to the EEOC, the franchisees had maintained a “100% healed” policy since roughly 2013 that refused any workplace accommodations for employees with medical restrictions. Workers who could not produce a doctor’s note declaring them free of all restrictions were placed on unpaid leave, forced to resign, or terminated.16EEOC. Dunkin Donuts Franchisees Pay $250,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
The franchisees agreed to pay $250,000 to affected employees and entered a four-year consent decree requiring them to eliminate the blanket policy, conduct individualized accommodation assessments, and provide annual ADA training. Two franchisees were also cited for improperly storing employee medical records in general personnel files.16EEOC. Dunkin Donuts Franchisees Pay $250,000 in EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit
Hidden Fees and False Advertising
In July 2024, two customers filed a putative class action in the Central District of California alleging that certain Dunkin’ locations in Santa Clarita and Encino added undisclosed “dine-in fees” or “employee wellness” fees of about $0.50, visible only on receipts after payment.17ClassAction.org. Dunkin Charges Hidden Dine-In Fee at Certain Locations, Class Action Claims The plaintiffs’ own complaint acknowledged that Dunkin’ had told franchisees to stop the practice in 2024, apparently in anticipation of California Senate Bill 478 restricting hidden fees.18ClassAction.org. Taferner et al v. Inspire Brands Inc. Complaint The court dismissed the case on March 25, 2025, for lack of subject-matter and personal jurisdiction, and a July 2025 ruling dismissed the parent and franchisor entities, holding that brand-level oversight of standards and marketing does not make a franchisor liable for franchisee-level pricing.2UCLA Law Review. Got Non-Dairy Milk?
A 2017 class action in the Eastern District of New York alleged Dunkin’ falsely marketed its breakfast sandwiches as containing “Angus steak” when the product was a ground beef patty with filler.19Top Class Actions. Dunkin Donuts Customers Fight Dismissal in Angus Steak Class Action The Second Circuit dismissed the case in March 2020, finding that four of the five plaintiffs lacked personal jurisdiction and that the remaining New York claim failed the “reasonable consumer” standard because no reasonable consumer would believe a grab-and-go breakfast sandwich contained an unadulterated piece of steak.20Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz. False Advertising Beef: Second Circuit Decides No Reasonable Consumer Would Be Confused
Wage and Overtime Enforcement
Dunkin’ franchisees have drawn repeated federal wage enforcement. In 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor ordered QSR Management LLC, then operating 55 Dunkin’ franchises in New Jersey and New York, to pay $197,550 in back wages after investigators found the company misclassified managers as overtime-exempt, failed to guarantee them the required minimum weekly salary, and at two locations withheld tips from customer service workers to cover register shortages.21Farmers Advance. Dunkin Faces Lawsuit Over Milk In 2016, two employees of Chicago-area Dunkin’ franchises filed a class action alleging that the franchise owner altered timekeeping records to avoid overtime and made unauthorized wage deductions for register shortages, dropping pay below the Chicago minimum wage.22Wage Advocates. Dunkin Donuts Wage Hour Lawsuit
The Beyond Meat Trademark Verdict
Dunkin’ also figured in a trademark case that ended with a $38.9 million jury verdict, though the money was not paid by Dunkin’. In 2022, Sonate Corp., doing business as Vegadelphia Foods, sued both Dunkin’ Brands and Beyond Meat, alleging that the slogan “Great Taste, Plant-Based” used in their joint campaign for the Beyond Sausage Sandwich infringed Sonate’s trademark, “Where Great Taste is Plant-Based.” The case was transferred from Florida to the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in 2023.23Bloomberg Law. Beyond Meat Hit With $39 Million Verdict in Dunkin Ad Trial Dunkin’ Brands reached a confidential settlement and was dismissed with prejudice on November 20, 2024.24SEC. Beyond Meat Inc. SEC Filing The case continued against Beyond Meat alone, and on November 24, 2025, a federal jury awarded Sonate $23.5 million in actual damages and $15.4 million in disgorged profits.
Why the Corporate Parent Usually Walks
Across these cases, one pattern repeats: the franchise model insulates the corporate parent. Dunkin’ Donuts Franchising LLC and Inspire Brands have argued, often successfully, that individual franchisees, not the franchisor, are responsible for the conduct at issue. The July 2025 ruling in the hidden-fee case stated it directly: maintaining brand standards, running centralized marketing, and controlling point-of-sale branding are not enough to show that a franchisor controlled the specific practice that caused the injury.25Buchalter. Federal Court Dismisses Dunkin Parent and Franchisor Defendants in Putative Hidden Fee Class Action The same court rejected the theory that franchisees act as agents of the franchisor.
The practical result: plaintiffs generally recover from individual operators like Golden Donuts in Georgia, Salz Management in New York, and The Daly/Kenney Group in Massachusetts, not from the national brand. Outcomes therefore depend heavily on which franchisee is involved and how much money that operator has, rather than on the resources of the Dunkin’ enterprise as a whole.