The story of the DQ Sisters is a journey of hard work and community spirit that met an unexpected legal roadblock. Patty DeMint and Michelle Robey opened their Dairy Queen in Medford, New York, with a simple goal of serving their neighbors and providing a supportive workplace. They became known for hiring anyone who needed a chance, including teenagers and senior citizens, often treating their staff like family.
However, their dream was nearly shattered by a century old law. Despite paying their employees every dollar they earned, the sisters found themselves at the center of a massive $6 million lawsuit. This battle ultimately led to a landmark change in state law, but the victory came at a high personal cost for the owners.
Table of Contents
The Hidden Rule That Led to a $6 Million Claim
The legal trouble began because of a specific classification in New York labor law known as manual workers. Under this rule, anyone who spends more than 25% of their time performing physical tasks must be paid weekly rather than every two weeks. The DQ Sisters were paying their team biweekly, a practice they believed was standard and acceptable.
Surprisingly, even their professional payroll company and previous state audits had not flagged the biweekly schedule as an issue. The lawsuit was initiated by a former employee and quickly grew into a class action case involving over 200 people. For small business owners like Patty and Michelle, the threat of a $6 million judgment meant they were at risk of losing their business and their homes.
How the DQ Sisters Fought for Fairer Legislation
While the sisters were forced to settle their case, they did not stop there. They realized that many other small businesses were being targeted by similar lawsuits for technical mistakes. They took their story to lawmakers to explain how a simple payroll schedule error, where no wages were actually stolen, could destroy a person’s livelihood.
Their advocacy was successful. In May 2025, New York updated its labor laws to protect employers from these extreme penalties. The new amendment clarifies that for a first time violation, businesses will only face interest charges on the delayed wages rather than massive liquidated damages. This change is a direct result of the sisters speaking out about their experience.
Understanding the Settlement and Where the Money Went
After years of legal stress, the sisters settled the lawsuit for $450,000. However, the outcome of the settlement sparked further debate about the nature of these types of lawsuits. While the owners had to pay a large sum, the actual workers received very little of it.
| Settlement Category | Amount Allotted | Impact on Recipients |
| Total Settlement | $450,000 | The total cost paid by the sisters. |
| Legal and Attorney Fees | $305,000 | Over 67% of the total went to lawyers. |
| Individual Worker Pay | Less than $200 | The small amount each employee received. |
| Original Lawsuit Claim | $6,000,000 | The initial demand that threatened the business. |
The sisters pointed out that the lawyers made significantly more than the employees they were representing. This highlighted a trend where technical loopholes were being used to generate large legal fees rather than to fix genuine wage theft.
Lessons for Workers and Business Owners
The DQ Sisters’ story serves as a cautionary tale for anyone running a business or working in the service industry. It shows that even with the best intentions, a lack of knowledge about specific local laws can lead to serious consequences. To stay protected, both parties should follow a few key practices:
- Employers must check if their staff qualify as manual workers under the 25% physical labor rule.
- Payroll schedules should be audited frequently to ensure they meet the specific requirements of the state.
- Workers should keep their own records of hours worked and compare them to their pay stubs.
- Business owners should stay in contact with local chambers of commerce to learn about law changes.
- Utilizing modern payroll software can help automate compliance with frequency of pay rules.
