The Dairy Queen restaurant in Medford, New York, owned by sisters Patty DeMint and Michelle Robey, was notable for its incredibly intimate ambiance in addition to its soft serve and burgers. The restaurant, which the employees described as “more like a family than just a regular business,” developed into a community center for stable employment and second chances. It was a company that gave everyone a place to belong, including minors and ex-offenders.
When the sisters were faced with a lawsuit so severe that it threatened to destroy not only their business but also their homes and savings, that hopeful vision fell apart. The fee? Paying employees every two weeks rather than weekly was something that had never been brought up in a state audit or even by their payroll provider before.
Key Details – Dairy Queen Labor Lawsuit (New York)
| Topic | Details |
|---|---|
| Business Owners | Patty DeMint and Michelle Robey |
| Location | Medford, Long Island, New York |
| Business Type | Dairy Queen Franchise (locally owned) |
| Legal Issue | Violation of NY Labor Law § 191 – “Manual Workers” must be paid weekly |
| Lawsuit Initiated By | Former employee laid off, claiming unpaid wages and overtime |
| Lawsuit Escalation | Became a class action for frequency-of-pay violation |
| Amount Sued For | $6 million |
| Final Settlement | $450,000 (of which $305,000 went to legal fees) |
| Law Changed | Gov. Hochul revised law in May 2025 to reduce future penalties |
| Legal Reference |
The problem was found in New York Labor Law Section 191, a labor law that is frequently disregarded. The regulation, which was created during the Great Depression to prevent wage fraud, stipulates that “manual workers” must get weekly compensation. However, the vague definition of a manual worker—any person who spends more than 25% of their time doing physical labor—has made it a remarkably powerful legal instrument in recent years.
What started as a former employee’s overtime claim turned into a class-action lawsuit alleging frequency-of-pay violations. The law regarded biweekly payments as a “late” wage scenario, allowing for double damages even if there were no overdue wages. The desired total? A staggering six million dollars.
DeMint and Robey were taken aback and frantically tried to understand the charge. Robey emphasized, “We always paid people what they earned.” Others in their community, many of whom had previously been paid biweekly, shared their confusion. After working at McDonald’s, DeMint had no intention of carrying on with the same payroll rhythm at Dairy Queen.
The sisters’ perplexity wasn’t unique. In New York, thousands of identical claims were filed against franchises and merchants. Through Instagram and internet advertisements, employment attorneys have started actively pursuing clients, urging workers to submit claims based only on payment schedules. Howard Wexler, a labor lawyer, said it was a legal change motivated more by formalities than by meaning.
He clarified, “What ought to have been a warning for compliance turned into a weapon.” A precedent that was especially harmful to small enterprises with little resources was established by the decision that permitted such litigation.
The sisters contacted lawmakers, determined to fight back. State Senator Dean Murray became aware of their argument and thought it was ridiculous. Murray stated, “There was nothing to protect workers from.” “They were receiving every penny, but not on a weekly basis.” He proposed measures to lessen the devastating damages and modify the punitive nature of the statute.
Governor Kathy Hochul signed the amendment into law in May 2025. Going forward, biweekly payments would not double the amount of wages due; they would just accrue interest. For many employers, that was a significant win, but for the sisters, who had already accepted a $450,000 payout, it came too late.
The emotional toll was just as high as the monetary one. “We don’t benefit from it,” Robey said. “We have already made the payment.” In actuality, just a small portion of the $450,000 made it to the staff. Attorneys collected more than $300,000, yet each former employee only received $200. DeMint was aware of the discrepancy. With obvious frustration, she remarked, “Everyone got pennies, but the lawyers, they’re the ones who made all the money.”
The sisters’ experience has spurred significant legislative reform and increased awareness despite the destruction. To make sure business owners are aware of subtle regulatory dangers and hidden legal traps, Robey has started collaborating with local business networks. The Suffolk Chambers of Commerce’s president, Robert Fonti, referred to the case as a “travesty.” He remarked, “It was a minor penalty buried in old law.” “What happened to them was so unfair.”
However, labor activists continue to insist that employers must be held to high standards. While acknowledging that the matter was regrettable, Brian Schneck of UAW Local 259 made the point that “the law is the law.” Everyone must abide by it. The weekly payment rule can be especially helpful for employees who are living paycheck to paycheck because it allows them to access earned revenue more quickly and eases financial strain.
However, the enforcement mechanism has come under fire for being unduly harmful, particularly when used in class-action lawsuits. In certain instances, what started out as protection has evolved into a means of making money, mostly for legal companies.
Even though the Dairy Queen sisters have suffered financial setbacks, their advocacy has resulted in legislative changes that will drastically lower the risk for thousands of companies. Now, despite the expense, their experience serves as a warning, a teaching moment, and a reason that many other small business owners in New York can finally relax.
To assist them restore what was lost, one of their employees created a GoFundMe page. Fonti declared, “It’s a victory because of what they did—it won’t happen again.”
They still have a Dairy Queen that serves burgers and cones. There is a new depth of expertise behind the counter, gained via a struggle that few anticipated. DeMint and Robey transformed a torturous litigation into a landmark piece of legislation via tenacity, advocacy, and sheer willpower—a striking example of how regular business owners can ignite long-lasting change.
