Jay-Z Announces 2010 Tour Dates. Chicago Not On List.
"Batman" Headline Is a Stretch, But Prison Escape Story Could Be Its Own Movie
Extra, Extra
Around Town
Health Care Bill Heads To U.S. House Floor For Debate, Vote
Imagine you’re an immigrant who has arrived in Chicago from Jerusalem.
You create your home and life in your new country. You work as bus driver and through that job, you’ve come to understand what people want. They want coffee and doughnuts. So you save your money and pledge to make the Great American Dream yours by buying a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise.
This was the dream of Walid Elkhatib, who arrived in Chicago in 1971 and bought his first Dunkin’ Donuts in 1979. He figured it was the perfect job because it allowed him to keep his Muslim belief of not touching or consuming pork. But in 1984, the Double D introduced breakfast sandwiches. For several years, the company allowed his multiple stores to remain meat free.
Then, in 2002, they changed their mind and threatened to not renew his franchise contracts. Elkhatib sued and is still fightin’ Dunkin’ in court today. The question of whether it’s racial discrimination, which is protected under civil rights law, or religious discrimination, which isn’t, has become the sticking point in this case and its numerous appeals. As we see it though, discrimination is discrimination no matter how it's legally defined.
But Chicagoist has to wonder, why should a heartburn-inducing sausage patty trump Elkhatib’s beliefs, especially if, as the owner, he is the one primarily losing out on potential breakfast sandwich profit?
Photo by author.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
By entering into the franchise agreement, the franchisor agreed (most likely) to a without cause termination clause. The legality of which is questionable depending on the state. That being said if enforceable the franchisor can terminate the relationship with the franchisee for any reason (even no reason). The implication of such a clause allows the franchisor to maintain control of the product common to all the franchises, i.g. the brand. The whole point of a franchise relationship is that the franchisee can enter into an already proven business concept, as well as benefit from big-budget national advertising. Each franchisee is responsible for upholding the quality of the brand, when one franchisee opts not to maintain his/her franshise in the same or similar manner as the other franshises, that person is harming the brand. This brings us back to the "no cause or no faul" termination clause, which allows the franchisor to protect the group interest in the quality of the brand by quickly terminating any franchise which may be shirking their responsibilities in upholding the brand reputation.
-You have just been lawyered. Say something.
doesn't DD have halal options? kfc and brown's chicken seem to have no problem doing that.
Is there REALLY meat on those sandwiches? Doesn't he serve a large Muslim clientèle anyway? Let him put up a huge "Pork-free" sign or something and be done with it.
Off-topic: You guys need to learn about the wonders of pork-roll (or Taylor Ham as the Pennsyltuckians call it.) God, I miss it!
Thank (insert religious entity here) that someone like guest is here to use the law as stated to reinforce serious common sense. If you have McDonald's on your signage, you can't just decide to serve spaghetti and blankets (RIP Mitch). You enter an agreement to uphold the corporation's standards.
Luckily, the free market allows Mr. Elkhatib the choice to open his own coffee shop where he can serve whatever he wants.
I agree, why doesn't the guy open 'Allah's Donut Shop' and be done with it? That way he can keep all the profits too.
But Guest has to wonder, why should a knocked up, Plan B seeking teenager trump a pharmacy owner’s religious beliefs, especially if, as the owner, he is the one primarily losing out on potential emergency contraceptive profit?
Why do I have a feeling Chicagoist could care less about that?
Could someone explain how this could even remotely be a racial issue? I don't recall ever reading that folks of Middle Eastern decent are not biologically able to eat and digest pork.
Mmmmmm, if there's one thing I won't complain about, it's the deliciousness of those Dunkin Donuts breakfast sandwiches. Heavenly.
In response to #6, I'll say there's a difference between not selling sausage and not selling contraceptives. Pharmacies can be scarce, not so much in Chicago but in other parts of the state. A pharmacist's refusal to sell certain drugs can unreasonably reduce someone's access to it, especially if it's the only pharmacy in town. And not anybody call sell drugs, you have to be a licensed pharmacist.
But I think I agree with the first commenter... Dunkin has a right to demand that its franchisees follow the company policy, and if they don't, they get fired. It was kind of dumb for DD to decide after all these years that he has to sell the breakfast sandwiches or whatever, but they have the right to. I mean, he can always pull a Burger Delights, right?
Guest 6: The distinction is that a woman's right to access contraception is a more compelling interest to a person's right to access pork sandwiches.
Apu would sell the sandwiches.
Yesterday's Tribune article pointed out that there are 3 other Chicago area Dunkin Donuts franchises that have been granted an exception to selling pork products. There are plenty of other chains that allow individual franchisees to opt out of certain products or promotions.
If this owner wasn't Muslim would so many people (who normally have a knee-jerk dislike of corporations) be supporting Dunkin Donuts?
ps: ditto what skaterina said to guest 6.
I'm sorry, I guess I missed the "right to contraception" clause in the Constitution -- is that before or after the Equal Protection Clause? The law doesn't care what skaterina feels is "more compelling" -- if Dunkin' Donuts can't enforce their franchisee contract because of Elkhatib's religious beliefs, then Walgreen's shouldn't be able to fire pharmacists who refuse to go against theirs.
#6
I resent the implication that if you side with DD, you are racist or anti-muslim.
The bottom line is that this guy has a business contract with Dunkin. Part of the deal when you enter into a franchise agreement is that the corporate office retains most of the power. If they want to make him sell poop on a stick, it is within their power.
In this case, it is probably good business strategy that they have all of their popular items available at every location where it is feasible. If he won't abide by that, then they are within their rights to find someone who will do more with their brand name and support.
If he doesn't like it - he is free to walk away from the franchise agreement I am sure. He can open his own business selling whatever he likes, without the backing of a national brand.
IMO, it isn't religious discrimation when he has plenty of other options. And it is a BUSINESS ARRANGMENT. No one is forcing him to handle pork, they are just forcing him to abide by his business agreement.
It's up to Dunkin Donuts. They want their stores to be the same from place to place if someone goes into a Dunkin Donuts and can't get the products they want that hurts the Dunkin Donuts name. People will think I guess Dunkin Donuts is not the place to go to get a tasty breakfast sandwich. So if you wanna be a Dunkin Donuts you gotta sell the Dunkin products.
Dunkin Donuts allowed him to not sell pork for 18 years before making an issue of it. Doesn't that say something?
I always preferred my pork with contraception. Ohhh, that sounds wrong....
I'm not a scholar of Islam, but how broadly is the prohibition against touching or consuming pork interpreted? If this guy does own multiple DD franchises, I highly doubt he'd be there Monday morning nuking the meat patties. In what way would he be violating his faith?
Conversely, why couldn't DD offer a pork-free or meat-free alternative? There has to be a significant portion of Dunkin-ites who would like such a product.
#6/13: IIRC, pharmacists are legally required to make available medications that have been approved by the FDA regardless of their personal beliefs. So the difference between the two issues has to do with what is being enforced: in the Walgreens case, the offending pharmacist would be fired because by not obeying the law, s/he would be putting the business at risk of losing its license to sell drugs (not to mention possibly losing their personal pharmacology license); in the DD case, they appear to be enforcing not a law but a contractual obligation that has been overlooked for years (and for other franchisees) which exists separately from whatever the law requires of DD.
#11: Of course Apu would sell the sandwiches. He's Hindu, not Muslim. If, however, the sausage patties contained beef, he might make a stink about it.
I wonder if there are any Orthodox Jewish DD franchisees who would have a similar issue with the requirement to sell pork products.
This should not remotely be a controversal issue. Dunkin Donuts clearly has the right to dictate to its franchisees what it must serve. That is sort of the purpose of a national brand, consistency so that customers always know what they can get. If people have strong religious beliefs that prohibit them from doing certain things, part of what makes practicing those beliefs so strong is the sacrifices that occur. It is pretty silly for this guy to be suing Dunkin Donuts because he can't practice his religious beliefs and at the same time operate a franchise. He can open any number of other businesses instead. It is truly sad that Chicagoist has apparently taken this guy's side. I guess that is knee-jerk "everything that can possibly be consruied as discrimination is discrimination and is evil".
Not to sound cold, but cry me a river -- I don't think Elkhatib has a leg to stand on, regardless of the sob story you portray this case as being.
The bottom line is that when you become a franchisee of a chain, you don't become king of the mountain. Why should the chain be held captive by a franchisee because he doesn't want to sell breakfast sandwiches? This case should be filed under "Aw, that sucks" and nothing more.
And one last thing -- even considering the idea that this is the result of racial discrimination is offensive to the men and women in this country and others who suffer actual racial discrimination. It really makes me sick how carefree people are with slinging that ugly accusation.
Elkhatib's lawyer even said that this would be an easier case if Elkhatib was an employee rather than a franchisee. Because Elkhatib is not an employee of Dunkin' Donuts, he can not sue under federal laws banning religious bias in employment.
Soooo, he's alleging discrimination based on race, claiming that because he's Arab he is forbidden from handling pork products because of his race's traditions and religious practices.
In other words he's twisting the law so that it benefits him. He's crying "Racist!" when he knows that this has nothing to do with race and everything to do with religion.
I'm with the others that say quit crying and open up Elkhatib's Dunkable Doughnuts. If you don't like how the game is played get off the field.
If a judge -- not any chicagoist commentors -- decides that being "arab" is a racial distinction, which isn't out of the question. Then it isn't hard for that judge to decide that Elkhatib's pork issue is as Arab as it is Muslim.
If a Mexican were stopped from participating in some sort of Our Lady of Guadalupe ceremony, wouldn't that participation be just as "Mexican" as it is "Catholic"? And, if you discriminate against someone by virtue of their being a Mexican, is that not a form of racism?
anyway, its up to the courts, which have both stuck to the letter of the law and defined complex issues very broadly, so don't listen to Guest #1. No contract allows for termination "for any reason" that's a fallacy. The first laws of this country, the Bill of Rights, invalidated that nonsense of "I can do whatever I want" contract writing.
Hopefully, this gentleman will lose his suit. Then he can open his own restaurant.
Some customers have likely been disappointed, upon entering his store, upon not finding the usual Dunkin' Donuts products. That could have a negative impact on that customers decisions to patronize Dunkin Donuts in the future. Meanwhile, nationwide branding and product availablity that are essential to any national restaurant chain.
This man should be told to....(insert pork-related quip here).
Guest 23: The Bill of Rights is nice, but it doesn't apply to Dunkin Donuts. The Bill of Rights only applies to the government. It's why Chicagoist can ban me from making comments on here (but you wouldn't do that, right Chicagoist?) Chicagoist isn't the government, so they don't have to adhere to the Bill of Rights and let me say whatever I want. It's why so many neighborhoods were able to contractually ban minorities from moving in. Freedom of contract is still alive and well.
So, DD doesn't have to follow the Bill of Rights either because it's a private business... But DD is subject to all those discrimination laws, which is what Elkhatib is suing under.
If a contract doesn't have a set length of time, the classic rule is that it can be terminated at any time for any reason. That's why your job can fire you, and you can quit. If a contract has a set length of time, there's usually penalties for terminating it early. DD would be free to terminate the contract, provided the contract isn't for a specific duration and it doesn't do so for an illegal reason, such as Elkhatib being Arab. Because it's a franchise agreement, this contract probably has a set length of time. DD would probably owe Elkhatib money if it terminated before the end of the agreement, because it was canceled early. However, DD isn't doing that: it's planning to not renew the contract once it expires. If it does that, DD won't owe him any money either.
I guess my point is this: if DD wants to get rid of Elkhatib, it is free to do so regardless of the Bill of Rights or any contracts. The only way he's going to keep his restaurants is if he can make this into racial discrimination - which I don't think it is.
Sorry for the long, drawn-out explanation, but I wanted to make it clear what I was talking about!
#18: DD does have a meat free option: you can get a breakfast sandwich without the patty. Or you could get a donut.
#19: right on!
25: Thank you for the reminder.
Too many people, for instance, cry "censorship" at any little thing, but fail to realize that only the government can censor.
As an aside, screw this guy. If he doesn't like DD policy, he can open his own place. America is great in that way.
#23, you win the award for having come up with the stupidest argument in support of this guy. There is nothing about Arab biology that makes them physically muslim, just as there is nothing about Mexican biology that makes them physically Catholic. I've known Mexican protestants and Mexican atheists and Arab atheists and Arab Christians. There is absolutely no connection between race, a biological characteristic, and religion, a personal choice.
It's not called Dunkin' Breakfast Sandwiches, so the MacDonald's spaghetti analogy is faulty. I read that DD actually once supplied him with a sign saying "No Meat Products Available" So, it's DD who is changing their stance, not that this guy woke up one morning and said "I'm not going to do it." I don't see why he should have to change his business after nearly 30 years.
As for the racism thing, let's see...this began in 2002? Let's all put on our thinking caps and try to think of something that may have happened in 2001 that may have put this country in an anti-Arab mood. Yes the card is over-played, but there is a lot of racism
I say, give 'em hell, Elkhatib, and if you guys want the sandwiches that badly, there's always another DD a mile or so away.
Just because business conditions are not favorable for someone does not mean racism is at play, even when national conditions would seem to support a racism charge.
If the guy wants so sell his religiously-approved products so much, come up with a business plan, win a loan from a bank, and open shop. Certainly this guy would have enough experience to do so.
So what? Dunkin Donuts has every right to decide the direction in which franchises of their store that sell their products are heading. I also think that the demand they're making -- that every franchise sell the entire product line -- is absolutely reasonable. Why should the company be forced not to maximize its profits to appease a franchise owner? That's crazy.
Guest #13 makes a good point.
At least this DD franchisee has the option of opening up his own coffee shop - sans breakfast sandwiches if he wishes.
People who have moral objections to fulfilling prescriptions for contraceptives, or emergency contraceptives, including myself, are essentially banned from the pharmacological profession by the law, unless they are willing to violate their own religious/moral beliefs.
I find it hard to beleive that there are many places in this country where pharmacies are so few and far between, that if one pharmacist will not fill a prescription, the customer cannot drive a few miles, or wait for another shift to fill that prescription. Is the government going to start regulating other products that stores must provide?
The Tribune article that inspired this post states that there are three other Dunkin' Donuts in the Chicagoland area that do not serve meat and/or breakfast sandwiches because of the customers' desire for kosher food, because of lease restrictions or because of space limitations. This isn't an issue of absolutes-- Dunkin' Donuts does have franchises whose menus differ for a variety of reasons, and I'm sure there are even more exceptions across the country. Heck, I've even dined at a dry Applebee's before, even though part of the basis for their brand is to be the chain version of the neighborhood bar.
I understand where DD is coming from-- they've invested a lot of money into the equipment and facilities to make their sandwiches-- and they want to consistently see a return on that investment. But I also empathize with Elkhatib's conviction in his beliefs and I think people standing up for their beliefs while trying to work within a corporate framework is becoming rarer and rarer.
Dan Boland: Yes, he must be really struggling for profits if he owns three DDs. If they made this request in '84, they may have had something, but they condoned it.
And every DD does NOT sell the same product line! I only know this because my wife is addicted to their chocolate chip muffins and the one on Kimball does not sell them (at least that's what they told me.) So to single this one guy out over his religious beliefs and risking a backlash...that's crazy.
We don't have any indication that they are singling him out for his religious beliefs or race. This is his allegation, and we don't really have direct evidence from these articles to believe his allegation for sure.
DD isn't even terminating the contract here - it is simply choosing not to renew. It's not taking any active discriminatory actions.
For everyone who supports the guy I pose the following hypothetical:
If you had a one-year landscaping contract with a white-owned company that six months later was taken over by hispanics, should you be penalized if you choose not to renew the contract when it expires?
A finding in this guy's favor would lead to ridiculous results when applied to future cases.
Guest 32 - it is the nature of a pharmacist's job to provide medicine to customers whose doctors have decided what medicines they should take and prescribed such medicines to them. It is not a pharmacist's job to make personal judgments about what medicines a stranger should or should not take.
No one is guaranteed or entitled to a career in any field. There are a lot of lucrative careers besides pharmacology in which your stance on contraception would be irrelevant to your work.
Contraceptives are a legal drug that the both the FDA and the Supreme Court have decided that women should have access to. If you don't like contraceptives, don't take them, don't buy them, don't handle them, don't look at them. But don't put up a big fuss about selling them when you intentionally put yourself in a position where it is your job to do so.
Hey #19 (that's a Steely Dan song)
You wrote: "Of course Apu would sell the sandwiches. He's Hindu, not Muslim. If, however, the sausage patties contained beef, he might make a stink about it"
I wasn't speaking of his religion, I was talking about him being a vegetarian. Remember the episode w Paul and LInda MacCartney? He had the secret rooftop garden for vegetarians?
That episode was classic.
I'm sorry, what law firm did you say you worked for? You have a very naive sense of the law if you think that the passage of time somehow strips Dunkin Donuts of the right to choose not to renew a contract upon its expiration. There was no breach of contract.
It's not because of his religious beliefs! Executives at DD probably aren't sitting around thinking "we have to get rid of this damn Muslim and his Quran," they're probably thinking "we have to get rid of this pain in the ass who doesn't want to serve breakfast sandwiches in our store." That's the issue. I'm sure that DD doesn't give a toss if the reason is his Muslim faith, vegetarianism or meat allergies.
Doctors don't, or shouldn't, have the right not to, say, test for an STD, because they believe in absitance. Pharmascists shouldn't have the right to choose what drugs they supply. Dunkin Donut owners should not have the right to choose which Dunkin Donuts products they sell.
It harms the brand overall because with fast food people stop in knowing exactly what they want. If that becomes unpredictable they lose a lot of cache as a brand.
Discrimination? Please! This is a business matter.
I expect, and hope, this guy will get crushed in court.
Hey #32-- Have you ever been to the bootheel of Missouri? Or central Arkansas? There are places in this country that DON'T have a Walgreens or CVS on every corner. Some of these places don't even have DENTISTS.
And, to get back to the subject, they certainly don't have Dunkin' Donuts in any form, which is truly sad. Maybe a Krispy Kreme twenty miles away. MAYBE.
My point is, in some places (particularly rural, poverty-stricken, perhaps meth-riddled, perhaps hopeless places)if a pharmacist refused to sell contraception or plan b to a young woman, it may have been her only opportunity to recieve it.
"My point is, in some places (particularly rural, poverty-stricken, perhaps meth-riddled, perhaps hopeless places)if a pharmacist refused to sell contraception or plan b to a young woman, it may have been her only opportunity to recieve it. "
That's a reasonable point. I will just point out that everyone who advocates for government regulation with this makes themselves look increadibly stupid when instead of talking about situations like that they protest when a pharmacist IN THE MIDDLE OF THE LOOP refuses to sell contraception. Do you recall when a "womens group" staged a protest and acted as if there was a huge injustice when the (then)Osco at Jackson and Wabash apparently did this. There are probably around 80 other pharmacies within a half mile of that one. Everyone who pretended like someone had been denied the ability to purchase contraception made themselves look like a bunch of fools. It makes people more likely to take the opposite view of their cause. I assume you were not a part of that and will condeme those who did protest.