A federal judge, for now, has dumped a class action lawsuit accusing Dunkin Donuts of discriminating against people who can't drink cows' milk by charging customers more for drinks containing dairy alternatives, like soy, coconut, almond or oat milk.
In the ruling, Illston said she agreed with Dunkin Donuts that Garland and her attorneys haven't provided enough evidence to back up their contentions that people who are lactose intolerant or otherwise can't safely consume traditional dairy products should be considered disabled under the federal Americans with Disabilities Act.
Trenton Kashima
| Linkedin
"... The question of whether a particular food allergy or intolerance renders a person disabled under the ADA requires individualized analysis," said Judge Illston.
That for now defeats Garland's claims on behalf of a potential class of potentially thousands of additional plaintiffs, which would have required the court to assume that everyone was "similarly situated."
"... The Court agrees with defendant that, as stated in the complaint, plaintiffs have failed to plausibly allege that they are disabled within the meaning of the ADA," the judge said.
In December 2023, attorneys from the firm of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, of San Diego, filed suit against Dunkin Donuts in San Francisco federal court on behalf of Garland and other named plaintiffs, including Tonya Hughes, of Alameda County; Natasha Hernandez, of Pittsburg County; Geaneen Cojum, of San Diego County; Arsenio Pelayo, of Hawaii; Albert Fitch, of New York; Pauleen Mara, of New York; Lora Premo, of Colorado; Urcelina Medeiros, of Massachusetts; and Ruby Smith, of Texas.
According to the complaint, all of the named plaintiffs are considered lactose intolerant or otherwise have a milk allergy, meaning they cannot consume products containing lactose, such as that found in traditional dairy milk and creamers, without becoming ill.
They asserted these allergies and intolerances to dairy make them disabled, under federal and state disability anti-discrimination laws.
The lawsuit accused Dunkin Donuts of allegedly violating those laws by charging customers 50 cents to $2.15 more for coffee drinks if customers request non-dairy milk alternatives. They asserted this could raise the price of a coffee drink by as much as 40%, and amounts to "a separate, higher-priced menu, aimed at customers who cannot ingest milk."
The lawsuit claimed "there is no material difference between the price of lactose-containing milks and the price of Non-Dairy Alternatives that would support levying
The plaintiffs claimed this amounted to illegal discrimination against lactose intolerant customers.
The plaintiffs were seeking a potentiall large, but unspecified payout on behalf of potentially thousands or even millions of Dunkin customers nationwide. They said the payout should exceed $5 million.
Dunkin Donuts, however, asked for the case to be dismissed, claiming such a food allergy doesn't qualify for special accommodations, or for the restaurant chain to adjust its pricing to ensure there is no difference in cost for drinks that contain traditional milk and those containing non-dairy alternatives.
They also argued that the plaintiffs cannot claim everyone with an intolerance to milk should be able to press their claims across all of California and potentially the entire U.S.
Judge Illston agreed, and dismissed the case.
However, she dismissed without prejudice, meaning plaintiffs can attempt to address the shortcomings in their complaint identified in the judge's ruling, and try again.
Representing the plaintiffs were attorneys Trenton R. Kashima and Rachel L. Soffin, of the firm of Milberg Coleman Bryson Phillips Grossman, of San Diego and St. Petersburg, Florida; and Bogdan Enica and Keith L. Gibson, of the Keith Gibson Law firm, of Miami and Glen Ellyn, Illinois.
Dunkin has been represented by attorneys David B. Carpenter, Brett E. Coburn and Meghan M. McBerry, of the firm of Alston & Bird, of Atlanta and San Francisco.