Meijer, Inc., the privately held Midwest supercenter chain, is currently defending two significant employee-benefits lawsuits: a proposed class action over a tobacco surcharge added to health-plan premiums, and a 401(k) forfeiture case that was dismissed at the district court and is now on appeal at the Sixth Circuit. Alongside these active matters, Meijer lawsuits in recent years have included a trademark dispute with Canadian retailer Roots that ended in voluntary dismissal, employment discrimination cases resolved by settlement and jury verdict, a biometric privacy class action, an opioid settlement, and a steady stream of slip-and-fall claims.
Tobacco Surcharge Class Action
In November 2025, Meijer employee Justin Trout filed a proposed class action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan challenging the company’s wellness-program surcharge that adds $20 per week, or roughly $1,040 per year, to the health-plan premiums of employees who use tobacco. The case is Trout v. Meijer, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-01378.1BenefitsLink. Trout v. Meijer, Inc., Class Action Complaint
The complaint alleges that the surcharge program fails the safe-harbor rules for health-contingent wellness programs under ERISA and the Affordable Care Act.2Law360. Meijer Health Plan Smoking Charge Shirked ERISA, Suit Says Federal regulations require that workers who complete a tobacco cessation program get the “full reward” available to nonsmokers, including retroactive refunds of surcharges already paid. Trout contends Meijer offers only a prospective waiver and omits required disclosures from enrollment materials, such as the notice that the plan must accommodate a personal physician’s recommendation for an alternative path to avoiding the fee.1BenefitsLink. Trout v. Meijer, Inc., Class Action Complaint
What the April 2026 Ruling Did
On April 23, 2026, Judge Hala Y. Jarbou narrowed the case sharply. The court dismissed most of Trout’s claims, finding that Meijer provides “numerous opportunities” for employees to complete a cessation program and waive the surcharge, which satisfies ERISA’s requirement that workers get at least one annual chance to earn the same benefit as nonsmoking employees.3Bloomberg Tax. Meijer Narrows but Can’t Escape Health Plan Tobacco Fee Lawsuit The court rejected the argument that employees must be able to qualify for the full reward at any point during the year.4Your ERISA Watch. Your ERISA Watch – April 29, 2026
Breach-of-fiduciary-duty and prohibited-transaction claims were thrown out. Judge Jarbou found that the plaintiff had not shown the surcharges were “plan assets” and that Meijer imposed the surcharge as plan sponsor rather than fiduciary, a distinction that shields certain employer decisions from ERISA liability. Any claims accruing before November 5, 2021, were barred by the four-year federal statute of limitations.4Your ERISA Watch. Your ERISA Watch – April 29, 2026
One claim survived. The court allowed the allegation that Meijer’s plan materials fail to disclose that physician recommendations for alternative cessation paths will be accommodated. The judge described the action overall as continuing in a “greatly diminished capacity,” with remedies limited to equitable restitution and disgorgement, and noted that recovering those funds may be complicated by the commingling of money.5Law360. Meijer Escapes Most Claims in Tobacco Fee ERISA Suit
401(k) Forfeiture Suit on Appeal
In August 2025, plan participants filed Donelson v. Meijer, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-1156, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The suit alleged Meijer misused forfeited 401(k) contributions. When employees leave before fully vesting in employer-matched contributions, the unvested portion is forfeited back to the plan. Plaintiffs argued Meijer applied those forfeited dollars to reduce its own required contributions rather than to lower administrative fees paid by participants, characterizing the practice as self-dealing that violated ERISA’s duties of loyalty and prudence.6Bloomberg Law. Meijer Sued by 401(k) Plan Participants Over Forfeiture Usage
Chief Judge Hala Y. Jarbou dismissed the case. The court held that ERISA fiduciaries are required only to deliver the benefits a plan actually promises, and that Meijer’s plan gave the company discretion over how to allocate forfeitures. Using them to offset employer contributions was a permissible exercise of that discretion, not a breach. The court also rejected the argument that holding forfeitures before allocating them was imprudent, noting that the plan allowed until the following year for distribution.7NAPA Net. Another 401(k) Forfeiture Fiduciary Breach Suit Falls Short
As of early 2026, the case was pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under Case No. 26-01098. Courts around the country have split on similar forfeiture claims against other large employers, so the Sixth Circuit’s decision could carry weight well beyond Meijer’s own plan.8Bloomberg Law. Rising Tide of 401(k) Forfeiture Suits Reaches Appellate Level
Roots Trademark Dispute
On August 8, 2025, Roots Corporation, the Canadian apparel retailer that has used the “ROOTS” branding since 1973, filed a federal trademark infringement lawsuit against Meijer in the Western District of Michigan. The case, Roots Corporation v. Meijer, Inc., No. 1:25-cv-00912, accused Meijer of planning a children’s clothing line called “ROOTS & THREADS” that would create consumer confusion with Roots’ established marks.9Bloomberg Law. Meijer Children’s Clothing Line Targeted in Trademark Lawsuit
According to the complaint, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office examining attorney had already issued a non-final rejection of Meijer’s trademark application, citing a likelihood of customer confusion, and Roots had sent cease-and-desist letters before Meijer launched the line anyway.10WGVU News. Canadian Retailer Roots Files Trademark Lawsuit Against Meijer Inc. The suit brought claims under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
The case ended quickly. On December 8, 2025, Roots filed a notice of voluntary dismissal with prejudice, and the court terminated the case the following day. A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same claims, which suggests a private resolution, though no public terms have emerged.11CourtListener. Roots Corporation v. Meijer, Inc., Docket
Employment Discrimination and Harassment
Meijer has resolved two employment cases whose outcomes are on the public record.
EEOC Disability Discrimination Settlement
In 2021, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission settled a disability discrimination suit against Meijer for $30,000. EEOC v. Meijer, Inc., No. 19-cv-12332 (E.D. Mich.), involved a cashier named Gary Simpkins who had psoriatic arthritis. Simpkins had worked in self-checkout for five years as an accommodation for his physical limitations. After a new supervisor moved him to regular checkout lanes, he asked to stay in self-checkout or transfer to the gas station or customer service desk. Meijer rejected those requests and instead demoted him to a part-time greeter role at lower pay and reduced benefits.12EEOC. Meijer, Inc. Pays $30,000 to Settle EEOC Disability Discrimination Suit Under the consent decree approved by Judge Judith E. Levy, Meijer agreed to train managers and HR staff on Americans with Disabilities Act requirements and to report future accommodation requests to the EEOC.
McCombs Sexual Harassment Verdict
In McCombs v. Meijer, Inc., a jury found in 2001 that Meijer was liable for the sexual harassment of Amber McCombs, a meat-department employee at a store in West Chester, Ohio. The court found that Meijer received multiple complaints but allowed the harasser to return to the same department after he admitted to the behavior. The jury awarded $25,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages, and the district court awarded more than $460,000 in attorneys’ fees. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, finding sufficient evidence that Meijer acted with “indifference or unreasonableness” by failing to take prompt corrective action.13FindLaw. McCombs v. Meijer, Inc.
Slip-and-Fall Litigation
With more than 500 retail locations, Meijer is a frequent premises-liability defendant, and recent Michigan appellate decisions have gone in different directions depending on the facts.
In Lam v. Meijer, Inc., the Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal in December 2025 after a customer broke her kneecap slipping on liquid in a bottle-return area. The majority found that a “Caution Wet Floor” sign near the entrance was sufficient to satisfy Meijer’s duty to warn. A dissenting judge argued a jury should decide whether the signage was adequate given that an employee had observed the hazard without cleaning it up.14Michigan Bar. Lam v. Meijer, Inc.
In Minniti v. Meijer, by contrast, the appeals court let claims proceed after a customer slipped on a greasy substance in a store café. Security footage showed the area had been unoccupied for two hours before the fall, and a store manager acknowledged that no employee may have inspected the space for up to six hours. Those facts raised a genuine question about whether the hazard had existed long enough for Meijer to have discovered and addressed it.
A July 2023 Michigan Supreme Court decision eliminated the state’s longstanding “open and obvious” defense in premises liability, making these cases harder for retailers to dismiss before trial. In Dziewit v. Meijer, Inc., the appeals court let a claim move forward after a customer sustained injuries requiring hip surgery in a fall, applying the new standard that shifts questions of duty and comparative negligence to juries.
Other Matters
Opioid settlement. Meijer, like other large pharmacy retailers, has entered opioid-related settlements. Public records confirm at least one payout: Howard County, Indiana, created a designated “Meijer Opioid Settlement” fund in June 2023 to receive a single payment of $562,500, with the county Board of Commissioners responsible for disbursing the funds locally.15Howard County, IN Code of Ordinances. Meijer Opioid Settlement Fund That figure represents one county’s share; total settlement amounts across jurisdictions are not detailed in available records.
Biometric privacy class action. In October 2017, a class action was filed against Meijer in Chicago state court alleging violations of the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. The plaintiff claimed Meijer required employees at its 24 Illinois stores to scan their fingerprints for timekeeping without written consent, notice of data-storage and destruction policies, or an explanation of the purpose of collecting biometric data. The suit sought damages of $5,000 or more per violation per employee.16Mondaq. Meijer Sued for Using Employee Fingerprints for Timekeeping
NLRB union insignia case. In Meijer, Incorporated v. NLRB (6th Cir. 1997), the Sixth Circuit enforced a National Labor Relations Board order after United Food and Commercial Workers Local 951 charged in 1993 that Meijer prohibited employees at its Traverse City store from wearing union buttons on the sales floor and disciplined two workers for union solicitation. An administrative law judge found violations of the National Labor Relations Act, the Board affirmed, and the Sixth Circuit ruled that Meijer failed to prove “special circumstances” justifying restrictions on union insignia.17FindLaw. Meijer, Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board