AP, April 1, 2009
A Muslim franchisee of a suburban Chicago Dunkin’ Donuts has surrendered his longtime store ownership after losing a legal battle with the chain over religious objections to selling pork.
Walid Elkhatib, 59, removed Dunkin’ Donuts signs from his Westchester store, his attorney Robert Habib said in a story posted Wednesday on the Chicago Tribune’s Web site.
Last week the chain sued Elkhatib, who has owned a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise since 1979, to bar him from using the company’s trademark.
That lawsuit followed a federal jury’s ruling earlier this month that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he would not sell breakfast sandwiches containing ham, bacon or sausage. Muslims are forbidden from eating pork and many also refuse handling the meat.
For nearly two decades, Dunkin’ Donuts allowed Elkhatib to not sell pork, even providing him with signs that read “No meat products available.” But in 2002, the company said it would not renew the franchise agreement unless he sold all company products.
{snip}
Andrew Mastrangelo, manager of public relations for Canton, Mass.-based Dunkin’ Brands Inc., noted that the jury’s verdict was unanimous and the court ruled against Elkhatib’s discrimination claims.
{snip}
Since he was not employee of the company, Elkhatib could not sue it under federal laws prohibiting workplace religious discrimination. So he sued under a law that bans racial and ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts.
{snip}
Habib found a Chicago location that did not sell pork products because many customers followed Jewish rules restricting pork.
Elkhatib’s franchise agreement ended in April 2008, but the company said he could operate the store until the end of the trial.
{snip}
Original article
(Posted on April 2, 2009)
Comments
If you open a franchise of anything, be it McDonald’s, Burger King, Arby’s or the Dollar Store, they will clearly tell you that there are things which you are to sell. There is no discrimination here. It would be discrimination if Mr. Elkhatib was NOT forced to serve pork products. People who scream and cry about discrimination need to look up the definition of the word.
This just illustrates the wisdom of not hiring Muslims. If he had been in an employee-employer relationship he would have won or received a settlement just like the Gold N Plump Muslims.
“Unanimous jury rules that Dunkin’ Donuts was not guilty of discrimination.”
A country bogged down in constant litigation between various tribal factions is a country that cannot stand and is destined to implode.
I am certain that Mr. Elkhatib can serve whatever he wants in whatever muslim country he came from. Maybe its time to go back?
I love reading how people get hired at companies and THEN refuse to abide by the rules. If I went into a Denny’s and they refused to give me bacon or sausage with my pancakes, I’d be furious.
I love reading how people get hired at companies and THEN refuse to abide by the rules. If I went into a Denny’s and they refused to give me bacon or sausage with my pancakes, I’d be furious.
But that is Dunkin’s problem with this case. The franchisee did read the rules when he bought the DONUT store thirty years ago. It was Dunkin’ who wanted to change the rules after-the-fact by becoming a full-service breakfast place, not the franchisee.
As much as it pains me to say, I’m with the Muslim guy on this one. Dunkin’ Donuts is notorious for bullying their franchise owners, and this appears to be part of that pattern.
I thought that the issue was settled a few years ago when they had the same dispute with a Jewish owner in Maryland. (I think it was Rockville.) Dunkin’ backed off quickly as they would have had a PR disaster by forcing the issue. Why would it have been such a big deal? Because that particular franchise was located inside of the JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTER.
Dunkin’s claim was that franchise owners have a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profits, and not upgrading somebody from a cheap donut to a pricier bacon, egg and cheese sandwich would be a breach of that responsibility. But that argument breaks down because in some neighborhoods, offering pork products would drive other customers away all together.
I look at this from a free market perspective. Let the poor guy sell the donuts that he bought the franchise to sell. If his lack of culinary diversity leads him lose business to competitors, that’s the risk he takes.
This is a classic test of “picking your battles carefully,” which Dunkin’ has miserably failed. This guy has been paying them franchise fees for 30 years. He has earned the right to judge his demographic and make his business decisions carefully.
And from a purely practical standpoint, is the franchise fees from a few pork sandwiches really worth ticking off an entire demographic where just a few wingnuts could start making Dunkin’ franchises “spontaneously combust” all across the country?
Here’s the thing. When this “man” decided to open up most likely more than a single franchise, he knew exactly what d&d sold. He got low interest rate loans from out “gubbament” to open these places. He only decided to declare his faith after he was well in business. Allah akbar the court continues to find absurd cases this way. Latest I’ve heard is Deval Patrick to the SC.
Hooray for Dunkin’ Donuts.
I wonder what their reasoning was for taking this step?
One can only speculate, but I hope it was fearing a backlash from white customers if whites learned of the local store’s policy.
It seems like many of these comments reflect an (often justifiable) stance against Muslims, rather than an objective discussion of this specific issue.
Let’s say that a White, Christian businessman bought a convenience store or drugstore franchise thirty years ago. Over time, the neighhborhood demographics changed, as well as the upper management in the franchise’s corporate headquarters.
Should this businessman now have to choose between losing his franchise license and being forced to sell alcohol….or the morning after pill, or pornography, or Black hair products……?
Tis a matter of contract law. Nothing more, nothing less.
Lets say that I have $250,000 to start a bussiness. I wish to open a resturant. I can either be totally free and open a new bussiness with a unique name and menu and expose myself to the accompaning high risk or I can buy a known franchise. If I choose the franchise option, I will lessen my risk by seceding some of my freedoms in running my bussiness in exchange for the potential value of having a ready made reputation for my product.
This bussinessman in question, no matter what race or creed he is, benefited from the name of the franchise he promised to represent.In exchange for this benefit, he agreed to uphold the standards of the franchise he benefitted from.
Dunkin Donuts has the right to their good name just as you our me. The franchisee in question agreed to uphold that good name by offering the products associated with the name,”Dunkin Donuts”.
Failure to do so constitutes breach of contract.
ChrisN…this bussinessman is free to sell whatever he desires, but he has no right to the Dunkin Donuts name.
Mike Erpelding is legally correct. He’s also correct in terms of the spirit of America. The litigious society that has been created by those dedicated to destroying the US, the West, and whites is being made even worse by the importation of people who should not be here at all. People who have no desire at all to make the country better. Their only desire is to take what they can, enjoy the benefits given to them for not being white, and change the country, hoping to remake it in their image. The people in charge won’t let them go quite that far, they prefer to let the newcomers be used as tools and useful idiots in remaking the country in the image of the Marxists.
Cris,I would say he picked the right time to fight since he won. I also would bet your stance is also bias to your religion about pork products also. Also a true Christian would give up a contract if ordered to sell things that was against their moral standards and convictions.
Also a true Christian would give up a contract if ordered to sell things that was against their moral standards and convictions.
But a MUSLIM and BLACK would choose to sue the company because THEY CAN!!!
“For nearly two decades, Dunkin’ Donuts allowed Elkhatib to not sell pork, even providing him with signs that read “No meat products available.” But in 2002, the company said it would not renew the franchise agreement unless he sold all company products.”
It doesn’t matter that they catered to him for twenty years, once they decided to enforce franchise rules, all that is soon forgotten. If you give them an inch, they’ll take a mile.
The simple solution for the guy would be to withdraw from the franchise. He’d have to spend money on his own advertising, and lose all the advantage of the franchise’s huge advertising coverage and name recognition.
There was a “Sonic” restaurant in Woodland Park, Colorado that did this. They had nearly all the same menu items, as far as I could tell, including the limeade with real cut-up lime in it, but called themselves “Cruisers”. I haven’t been up that way in years, but we used to stop there every time we passed through. Being forced to accept the franchise menu or go it alone thus is not necessarily the disaster this whiner has made it out to be. He was just looking for a shot at winning the “ghetto lottery”.
