Dunkin’ Franchisees Put Employees With Medical Restrictions on Indefinite Unpaid Leave Under a 100% Healed Policy — They Paid $250,000 to Settle

Photo credit: AI-generated image created using ChatGPT. Illustrative only.

At a couple of Dunkin’ Donuts locations in southeastern Massachusetts, getting hurt or coming back with a medical restriction allegedly didn’t lead to a conversation about what work you could still do. It led to the same dead end: go home without pay, and don’t come back until a doctor says you have zero restrictions.

That’s the core of a federal disability discrimination case the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission laid out in the agency’s press release. The franchise operators agreed to pay $250,000 and change workplace practices under a four-year consent decree, rather than fight the lawsuit in court.

A “no restrictions” rule that turned into a trap

The EEOC said The Daly/Kenney Group, LLC and 15 related companies—owners and operators of Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants in New Bedford and Fairhaven—had been using a policy since about March 2013 that functioned like a blunt instrument.

If an employee had an actual or even perceived medical restriction, the agency alleged the franchisees refused to provide reasonable accommodations. Instead of adjusting duties or evaluating what the worker could safely handle, the alleged default was unpaid, indefinite leave.

The pressure point was the return-to-work requirement: employees reportedly had to produce a doctor’s note stating they had no restrictions. If they couldn’t, the leave could stretch on with no end date, and the EEOC said it “often resulted” in forced resignation or discharge.

How unpaid, indefinite leave becomes the only option

On paper, “leave” can sound like flexibility. In practice, “unpaid” and “indefinite” are the kind of words that push people out the door, especially in restaurant jobs where missing even one paycheck can snowball into late rent, missed bills, and scrambling for another employer.

The EEOC’s description also gets at the bigger problem with the approach: it didn’t matter if the restriction actually prevented the employee from doing the essential parts of the job. The agency said the franchisees still sent people home even when they could perform essential functions.

That’s where the “100% healed” label comes in. The EEOC framed these policies as outdated and rooted in bias—treating any restriction as disqualifying, instead of treating it as a starting point for an individualized plan.

The ADA’s basic requirement: assess the person, not the template

The EEOC tied the alleged policy directly to the Americans with Disabilities Act, which prohibits discrimination against qualified individuals with disabilities and requires reasonable accommodations when they allow an employee to do the job.

In the agency’s view, a uniform rule—no one returns until they’re fully cleared—short-circuits the law’s individualized process. Acting district director Arlean Nieto said the ADA requires employers to individually assess accommodations and grant those that don’t pose an undue hardship, and that blanket policies are “red flags” for violations.

EEOC regional attorney Kimberly Cruz also called out “100%-healed policies” as something that “do not belong in the modern workplace,” saying the settlement ends the unlawful practice and compensates employees who were harmed.

Medical paperwork wasn’t handled the way it should have been

The lawsuit wasn’t only about forcing people onto leave. The EEOC also alleged that two of the franchisees unlawfully commingled employees’ medical records with their personnel files.

That detail matters because medical information is supposed to be handled with extra care. Even in workplaces without a dedicated HR department, mixing medical paperwork into a general personnel folder can increase the risk of improper access and casual disclosure.

In other words, the case wasn’t just about who got scheduled and who didn’t. It was also about how sensitive health information was treated behind the counter and in the back office.

The settlement: money now, rules for the next four years

The EEOC filed the case in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts as EEOC v. The Daly/Kenney Group, LLC, et al., after attempting to resolve it through the agency’s administrative conciliation process.

The settlement comes through a four-year consent decree. Beyond the $250,000 payment for monetary damages to affected employees, the decree requires the franchisees to eliminate any requirement that employees have no medical restrictions before returning to work.

It also requires the companies to individually assess and provide reasonable accommodations to qualified employees with disabilities, and to train all employees annually on the ADA. That mix—cash plus ongoing oversight—signals that the EEOC wasn’t only looking to settle past claims, but to prevent the same playbook from being used again.

What people tend to home in on in cases like this

Even without a flood of public comments attached to the EEOC release, the practical pressure points are obvious. A “fully healed” demand is simple to administer, but it’s also the kind of rule that can quietly turn a workplace injury or medical limitation into unemployment—especially if the job could have been adjusted in small ways.

People also tend to focus on documentation, because paperwork is where these disputes become real. A return-to-work note that lists restrictions, a schedule suddenly wiped clean, a manager saying “come back when you’re 100%,” a leave designation that has no end date—those details are often what separates a misunderstanding from an enforceable pattern.

And once medical records are handled casually, it raises another kind of worry: not just losing shifts, but losing control of personal information in a workplace where lots of people may have access to the same files.

The franchisees in this case are now locked into a multi-year compliance plan, and employees at those locations have a clearer set of rules on paper about accommodations and training. But the bigger reality is simpler: for years, the EEOC says, workers with restrictions were treated as if they had only one choice—be “100%,” or be gone—and it took a federal lawsuit to force the policy to change.