A California federal judge has ruled in favor of Dunkin’ Donuts and its franchisees, dismissing a lawsuit that accused the company of disability discrimination for charging extra for nondairy milk alternatives. The lawsuit, filed by lactose-intolerant customers, claimed that the surcharge for nondairy options, such as soy, oat, coconut, and almond milk, violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act.
U.S. District Judge Susan Illston granted Dunkin’s motion to dismiss the claims brought by four California-based plaintiffs, concluding that the surcharge, which applied to all customers regardless of disability, did not violate the ADA. The judge also dismissed the claims from six non-California plaintiffs due to lack of jurisdiction, though they may refile their claims in an appropriate forum.
In her ruling, Judge Illston explained that the ADA does not require restaurants to sell accessible goods at the same price as non-accessible goods. Since Dunkin’ charged all customers the same price for nondairy milk, the court found no legal violation. The judge also referenced a recent company announcement that, effective March 5, 2025, dairy alternatives would be available at no additional charge to customers, though this change did not impact the outcome of the case.
“The court agrees with defendants,” Judge Illston wrote, affirming Dunkin’s stance that the ADA does not mandate the removal of the surcharge. The lawsuit’s claim under California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act was also dismissed, as the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the extra charge targeted customers based on their medical condition or disability.
Dunkin’ customers involved in the case had argued that the surcharge discriminated against those with lactose intolerance or milk allergies, causing them adverse health effects if they consumed dairy. The plaintiffs claimed they were charged an additional 50 cents to $2 for substituting nondairy milk in their drinks. However, the court noted that Dunkin’ has made accommodations for those with specific dietary needs, including offering sugar-free sweeteners at no extra cost for those managing diabetes or weight control.
The decision follows a similar ruling in a case against Peet’s Coffee and another against The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf, where similar claims regarding nondairy milk surcharges were also dismissed. Judge Illston concluded that the extra charges for nondairy alternatives could not be considered discriminatory under the ADA, as they applied to all customers equally.
The plaintiffs’ legal team, led by Trenton R. Kashima of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman PLLC, did not present additional grounds to amend the case, leading Judge Illston to deny their request for further amendments. As a result, the case was dismissed in its entirety.
Dunkin’ was represented by attorneys from Alston & Bird LLP, including David B. Carpenter, Brett E. Coburn, and Meghan M. McBerry, while the franchisee defendants were represented by Brian K. Keeley of Jackson Lewis PC.
