A federal judge in Ohio has given partial preliminary approval to a class action settlement involving Domino’s franchise delivery drivers who alleged they were systematically under-reimbursed for mileage and vehicle expenses. On February 26, 2026, Judge Michael R. Barrett of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio approved the class’s proposed service awards, administration fees, and attorneys’ fees and costs — but declined to retain jurisdiction over the broader Federal Labor Standards Act collective claims.
A fairness hearing is scheduled for July 2026 before final approval can be granted. The ruling is the latest development in a long line of legal battles between Domino’s delivery drivers and the franchise operations that employ them. While the specific total settlement dollar amount for this Ohio case has not been publicly disclosed, the partial approval signals that the court found enough merit in the settlement’s structure to move forward on key components.
Table of Contents
- What Does Partial Preliminary Approval Mean for the Domino’s Delivery Driver Class Action?
- Why Domino’s Delivery Drivers Keep Filing Mileage Reimbursement Lawsuits
- A Pattern of Domino’s Driver Settlements Across the Country
- What Affected Domino’s Drivers Should Do Right Now
- The FLSA Jurisdiction Issue and What It Means Going Forward
- How Mileage Reimbursement Disputes Are Calculated in Delivery Driver Cases
- What to Expect from the July 2026 Fairness Hearing and Beyond
- Frequently Asked Questions
What Does Partial Preliminary Approval Mean for the Domino’s Delivery Driver Class Action?
Preliminary approval is typically the first major judicial checkpoint in a class action settlement. When a court grants full preliminary approval, it signs off on the overall deal and authorizes notice to be sent to class members. Partial preliminary approval, as granted here by Judge Barrett, is more detailed. The court approved specific elements of the settlement — the service awards for named plaintiffs, the fees for the claims administrator, and the attorneys’ fees and costs — but stopped short of blessing the entire agreement.
The critical sticking point was the court’s refusal to retain jurisdiction over the FLSA collective claims, which are governed by different opt-in rules than standard class action claims under state law. This distinction matters because FLSA collective actions require workers to affirmatively opt in rather than being automatically included as class members. By declining jurisdiction over that portion, Judge Barrett effectively separated the federal wage claims from the state-law components of the case. For drivers, this means the path to resolution is now split: some claims move forward toward the July 2026 fairness hearing, while the FLSA collective piece remains unresolved. It is not uncommon for courts to handle multi-claim settlements in stages, but it does introduce uncertainty about whether all affected drivers will receive compensation under a single agreement.
Why Domino’s Delivery Drivers Keep Filing Mileage Reimbursement Lawsuits
The core allegation in this case — and in numerous similar lawsuits across the country — is that Domino’s franchise operators systematically under-reimburse their delivery drivers for the actual costs of using personal vehicles on the job. Drivers typically use their own cars, pay for their own gas, handle their own maintenance, and absorb the depreciation that comes with putting hundreds of miles per week on a vehicle for work. When the reimbursement rate falls below what it actually costs to operate the vehicle, drivers argue their effective hourly wage drops below the legal minimum, violating the FLSA and various state wage laws.
This is not a theoretical problem. The IRS standard mileage rate for 2026 reflects the real cost of vehicle operation, and many franchise reimbursement rates have historically fallen well below that benchmark. However, it is important to note that the FLSA does not explicitly require mileage reimbursement — the legal theory instead rests on the argument that unreimbursed expenses push a driver’s net pay below minimum wage. If a driver earns well above minimum wage before expenses, the claim becomes harder to sustain, which is why these cases tend to be strongest for drivers working in high-cost areas or those logging significant delivery miles relative to their hourly pay.
A Pattern of Domino’s Driver Settlements Across the Country
This Ohio case is far from an isolated incident. Domino’s franchise delivery drivers have secured significant settlements in multiple jurisdictions over the past several years, establishing a clear pattern of litigation in this space. In 2021, Domino’s drivers received a $3 million settlement to resolve claims of unpaid wages. The following year, a $1.95 million settlement was approved affecting more than 750 drivers who alleged under-reimbursement for vehicle expenses. In a separate case, Domino’s franchisee Team Pizza Inc.
Was permitted to finalize a $590,000 settlement over driver mileage reimbursement without the lengthy court approval process that typically accompanies class action deals. Meanwhile, the case of Oakley v. Domino’s Pizza LLC in King County Superior Court (Case No. 20-2-14563-7 KNT) covered commercial delivery drivers in Washington state who were paid per mile or load weight from September 30, 2017 through November 15, 2023, with a final approval hearing held in May 2024. The sheer volume of these cases across different states and different franchise operators suggests the reimbursement practices at issue are widespread rather than limited to a few bad actors.
What Affected Domino’s Drivers Should Do Right Now
If you currently drive or have recently driven for a Domino’s franchise and believe you were under-reimbursed for mileage and vehicle expenses, the most important step is to preserve your records. Pay stubs, mileage logs, gas receipts, maintenance records, and any written reimbursement policies from your employer are all potentially relevant. Many drivers do not keep detailed records of their actual vehicle costs, which can make it difficult to prove the gap between reimbursement received and expenses incurred. There is a meaningful difference between being part of an existing class action and filing an individual claim.
In the Ohio case now moving toward a fairness hearing, class members will eventually receive notice explaining their rights and options — including the right to opt out and pursue their own lawsuit. Opting out preserves the ability to seek a potentially larger individual recovery, but it also means shouldering the cost and risk of litigation alone. For most drivers, staying in the class is the more practical choice, especially when the settlement terms are reasonable. However, drivers with unusually high mileage or expenses may find that their individual claims are worth substantially more than a pro rata share of a class settlement.
The FLSA Jurisdiction Issue and What It Means Going Forward
Judge Barrett’s decision not to retain jurisdiction over the FLSA collective claims is the most significant wrinkle in this partial approval. The FLSA’s collective action mechanism is distinct from a Rule 23 class action in several important ways. Class members in a Rule 23 action are automatically included unless they opt out, while FLSA collective action members must affirmatively opt in by filing written consent. This difference affects everything from how notice is distributed to how damages are calculated.
By declining to retain jurisdiction over the FLSA portion, the court may be signaling concerns about whether the settlement adequately addresses the federal wage claims or whether those claims are better resolved through a different procedural vehicle. For affected drivers, this creates a limitation worth understanding: the state-law claims may settle while the federal claims remain in limbo. Drivers who signed opt-in consent forms for the FLSA collective should pay close attention to any future notices from the court or class counsel, as their federal claims may require separate action. Failing to respond to such notices could result in forfeiting rights that are not automatically preserved.
How Mileage Reimbursement Disputes Are Calculated in Delivery Driver Cases
The math behind these cases is straightforward in concept but messy in practice. Consider a driver who earns $10 per hour before tips, takes home an average of $5 per hour in tips, and drives 80 miles during a shift using a vehicle that costs roughly 67 cents per mile to operate (in line with IRS estimates). That driver’s vehicle expense for the shift is approximately $53.60.
If the franchise reimburses only $25 for that shift’s mileage, the driver absorbs $28.60 in unreimbursed costs. Subtract that from total earnings, and the effective hourly rate drops — potentially below minimum wage, depending on shift length and local minimum wage laws. Courts and settlement administrators typically use a combination of payroll records, franchise reimbursement policies, and IRS mileage rates to estimate aggregate damages across the class. The $1.95 million settlement in 2022 covering 750-plus drivers works out to roughly $2,600 per driver on average, though actual distributions vary based on miles driven and tenure.
What to Expect from the July 2026 Fairness Hearing and Beyond
The fairness hearing scheduled for July 2026 will be the next critical milestone in this case. At that hearing, Judge Barrett will evaluate whether the approved portions of the settlement are fair, reasonable, and adequate for the class. Class members will have the opportunity to object to the settlement terms or opt out entirely before that date.
If the court grants final approval, the claims administration process will begin, and eligible drivers will receive payment according to the distribution formula outlined in the settlement agreement. Looking ahead, the broader trend of delivery driver mileage litigation shows no signs of slowing. As gig economy and franchise delivery models continue to rely on workers using personal vehicles, disputes over who bears the true cost of vehicle operation will persist. The partial approval in this Ohio case adds another data point to a growing body of law that increasingly favors drivers in these disputes, though each case turns on its own facts and the specific reimbursement practices of the franchise in question.
Frequently Asked Questions
Am I part of this class action if I drove for any Domino’s franchise?
Not necessarily. This case involves specific Domino’s franchise operators in the Southern District of Ohio. Different lawsuits cover different franchisees and geographic areas. You would need to confirm whether your specific employer is a defendant in this case or a related one.
Do I need to do anything right now to preserve my claim?
If you have not already opted into the FLSA collective action, you may need to file written consent to participate in that portion of the case. For the state-law class claims, you are likely included automatically if you meet the class definition. Preserve any records of your mileage, expenses, and pay stubs in the meantime.
How much money could I receive from this settlement?
The total settlement amount for this Ohio case has not been publicly disclosed. Based on prior Domino’s driver settlements, individual payments have varied widely depending on class size, total miles driven, and employment duration. The 2022 settlement averaged roughly $2,600 per driver across 750-plus class members.
What happens if the court does not grant final approval at the July 2026 hearing?
If the court denies final approval, the parties would likely return to negotiations or proceed to trial. Class members would not receive any payment under the proposed settlement, but their underlying claims would remain intact.
Can I opt out and file my own lawsuit instead?
Yes, class members typically have the right to opt out before a specified deadline and pursue individual claims. This may make sense for drivers with unusually high expenses or mileage, but it means taking on the cost and risk of litigation without the support of class counsel.