Waffle House is staring down a proposed class-action lawsuit from a former server who says the Norcross-based chain quietly skimmed an extra tobacco surcharge straight from workers' paychecks. The complaint accuses the company of turning the fee into a revenue stream instead of a legitimate wellness incentive and asks a judge to order refunds for thousands of employees. At the heart of the fight is a roughly $92-a-month charge that employees were told they could dodge only by completing a cessation program, a path the suit says was neither meaningful nor retroactive.
What the suit says
The complaint, filed June 23 in federal court by former Waffle House server Corkeitha Hicks, asks a judge to certify a nationwide class of employees who paid the tobacco fee and to order refunds and other relief, including a jury trial, according to CBS News Atlanta. Hicks says $23 came out of her paycheck every week, adding up to $92 a month, or about $1,104 a year, while she worked at a Forsyth County restaurant. Plaintiffs argue the surcharge program did not satisfy requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act and the Affordable Care Act that govern when employers can tie health premiums to individual health factors.
How the fee worked
According to the filing, the tobacco fee was set up as a default deduction that employees had to affirmatively opt out of, and plaintiffs allege Waffle House sent the money into its general company accounts instead of a health-plan trust. That structure, they say, let the company earn interest on the withheld cash and shrink its own contributions to the plan, as reported by Law360. The complaint also points out that workers who completed the chain's cessation program after September 30 of a plan year did not receive full retroactive refunds of surcharges they had already paid, a setup the suit describes as out of step with federal wellness rules.
Who could be affected
The lawsuit seeks class status for workers who paid the tobacco surcharge over the last six years, a group that plaintiffs say could include thousands of employees given Waffle House's more than 2,000 locations across roughly 25 states. The case is listed on federal dockets tracked by Justia Dockets, and local outlets have begun reporting on it. Waffle House has not publicly weighed in, and coverage notes that media organizations have asked the company for comment. News4Jax reports that the plaintiff wants the court to order repayment of the surcharges and to strip the company of any profits earned while holding those funds.
How the law works
Federal rules only permit a tobacco-related premium surcharge if it is part of a compliant wellness program. That framework requires a reasonable alternative standard for qualifying, at least one chance each year to earn the reward, clear disclosures in plan materials, and specific limits on how large incentives can be. Those conditions come from ACA and HIPAA wellness-program rules and their implementing guidance, and Internal Revenue Service and Labor Department guidance beginning in 2013 lays out the five-part test that regulators and courts rely on. IRS guidance and related Department of Labor materials explain the mechanics that plaintiffs say Waffle House skipped.
A national wave of suits
The Waffle House case arrives in the middle of a broader wave of lawsuits targeting employer tobacco surcharges. Several large employers have faced similar challenges from 2025 to 2026, with some matters ending in multi-million-dollar settlements while others were tossed out or produced rulings that backed employers, highlighting how outcomes can vary widely by jurisdiction. Legal analysis and reporting, including a recent write-up on a roughly $5.1 million settlement involving Casey's General Stores, indicate that the fight is now playing out across retail and food-service employers. LegalClarity and employment-law briefings have cataloged the diverging approaches that judges are taking.
What could happen next
If the court certifies a class, the suit would move into discovery, where plaintiffs will try to show that the program lacked realistic alternatives and clear notice, while Waffle House defends how it designed and ran the surcharge. In other cases, some courts have found that removing a surcharge on a go-forward basis after a worker completes a program can satisfy ERISA, while other courts have allowed refund claims to continue. Law firms tracking these disputes say that either a settlement or a dismissal could be on the table, and Law360 has reported on similar litigation paths and results in other parts of the country.
Legal implications
The complaint leans on ERISA and ACA-based theories and seeks restitution of the surcharges, disgorgement of any interest or profits, an order blocking future use of the fee, and a jury trial. Docket listings show the case is still in its early stages in the Middle District of Georgia, where judges will decide whether it can proceed as a nationwide class or must be scaled back. Justia Dockets lists the filing, and the parties are now set to test their competing legal theories in court.
For employees who saw the tobacco line on their pay stubs, and for regulars who know the chain's culture well, the case is a reminder of how a routine payroll deduction can turn into a high-stakes legal battle when federal rules, benefits paperwork, and everyday plan administration collide. We will be watching for new filings and any response from Waffle House as the litigation moves ahead.
