![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
rktso, christian pharmacists don't have to supply medication to women who need it, but a muslim businesses owner can lose his franchise for not wanting to supply bacon? really?
ok. that really is really a rhetorical question.
and i must say, the timing is....well...a little obvious.
Dunkin' Donuts operator gives up franchise in pork battle
An Arab-American owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts store has to give up his franchise after he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his religious objections to selling pork products.
A lawyer for Walid Elkhatib said Tuesday that his client is in the process of removing Dunkin' Donuts signs from his Westchester outlet, but apparently not fast enough for the company.
Dunkin' Donuts went to federal court in Chicago on March 27 to stop Elkhatib, 59, from using the company's trademarks and other proprietary materials.
The company's lawsuit came two weeks after a federal jury found that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he declined to sell breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage.
The dietary restrictions of Elkhatib's Muslim faith forbid him from eating or handling pork. When he decided to go into the restaurant business, his faith was one of the reasons why he invested in Dunkin' Donuts in 1979. The chain did not introduce breakfast sandwiches until 1984.
For nearly 20 years, Dunkin' Donuts accommodated his religious beliefs, even providing him signs for his store that said, "No meat products available," Elkhatib asserted in court documents. But in 2002, the company reversed course and told him it would not renew his franchise agreement if he did not sell its full line of products.
Elkhatib sued the company but because he is not an employee of Dunkin' Donuts, he could not sue under federal laws banning religious discrimination in the work place. Instead, he invoked a law that bars racial and certain forms of ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts.
A Chicago federal judge rejected Elkhatib's claim, finding that it was a religious rather than a racial claim. But in 2007 an appellate court allowed the case to go to trial, finding that Dunkin' Donuts did not consistently apply its rules on franchise holders. In fact, Elkhatib's lawyer found a Chicago location that did not sell breakfast sandwiches with pork because many of the customers followed Jewish dietary laws that ban the consumption of pork products.
Elkhatib's franchise agreement expired in April 2008, but Dunkin' Donuts allowed him to keep operating the store until the end of the trial.
After the four-day trial ended March 13 in favor of Dunkin' Donuts, Elkhatib continued to use its trademarks although his franchise agreement had expired, the company said in its suit. Elkhatib also has not returned company operating manuals and other materials despite repeated request, the company said.
Elkhatib's lawyer, Robert Habib, said his client will end his association with Dunkin' Donuts, but he has a 10-year lease on the property and owns the equipment.
"He plans to continue to operate a restaurant," Habib said. "Walid will survive."
chi-trib
race wire~ colorlines blog
ok. that really is really a rhetorical question.
and i must say, the timing is....well...a little obvious.
Dunkin' Donuts operator gives up franchise in pork battle
An Arab-American owner of a Chicago-area Dunkin' Donuts store has to give up his franchise after he lost his long-running legal battle with the restaurant chain over his religious objections to selling pork products.
A lawyer for Walid Elkhatib said Tuesday that his client is in the process of removing Dunkin' Donuts signs from his Westchester outlet, but apparently not fast enough for the company.
Dunkin' Donuts went to federal court in Chicago on March 27 to stop Elkhatib, 59, from using the company's trademarks and other proprietary materials.
The company's lawsuit came two weeks after a federal jury found that the chain did not discriminate against Elkhatib for refusing to renew his franchise agreement because he declined to sell breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage.
The dietary restrictions of Elkhatib's Muslim faith forbid him from eating or handling pork. When he decided to go into the restaurant business, his faith was one of the reasons why he invested in Dunkin' Donuts in 1979. The chain did not introduce breakfast sandwiches until 1984.
For nearly 20 years, Dunkin' Donuts accommodated his religious beliefs, even providing him signs for his store that said, "No meat products available," Elkhatib asserted in court documents. But in 2002, the company reversed course and told him it would not renew his franchise agreement if he did not sell its full line of products.
Elkhatib sued the company but because he is not an employee of Dunkin' Donuts, he could not sue under federal laws banning religious discrimination in the work place. Instead, he invoked a law that bars racial and certain forms of ancestry discrimination in the making of contracts.
A Chicago federal judge rejected Elkhatib's claim, finding that it was a religious rather than a racial claim. But in 2007 an appellate court allowed the case to go to trial, finding that Dunkin' Donuts did not consistently apply its rules on franchise holders. In fact, Elkhatib's lawyer found a Chicago location that did not sell breakfast sandwiches with pork because many of the customers followed Jewish dietary laws that ban the consumption of pork products.
Elkhatib's franchise agreement expired in April 2008, but Dunkin' Donuts allowed him to keep operating the store until the end of the trial.
After the four-day trial ended March 13 in favor of Dunkin' Donuts, Elkhatib continued to use its trademarks although his franchise agreement had expired, the company said in its suit. Elkhatib also has not returned company operating manuals and other materials despite repeated request, the company said.
Elkhatib's lawyer, Robert Habib, said his client will end his association with Dunkin' Donuts, but he has a 10-year lease on the property and owns the equipment.
"He plans to continue to operate a restaurant," Habib said. "Walid will survive."
chi-trib
race wire~ colorlines blog
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 12:25 am (UTC)It just annoys me... deeply... there is a kosher DD around the corner from the Grad Center, so when I do DD, it is of the kosher variety. I wonder if the franchisee above could've used a kosher defense to keep not serving meat. It would've been fucked up if he had to (hallal = just as valid as kosher), but I don't get the double standard!
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 05:57 pm (UTC)which dd is kosher?
i'm pretty sure the start date for this whole drama of 2002 is not a coincidence. :/
this double standard needs to die, and not by eliminating the kosher ones.
no subject
Date: 2009-04-04 11:31 pm (UTC)And indeed, the double standard is bad, but a single discriminatory standard that got rid of kosher as well would be just as bad. Instead, DD should allow individual franchisees to comply with religious standards of food handling/prep. It is unfortunate that, to a large degree, Muslims in the US are less organized than the Jews. We have the Orthodox Union and their kashrut granting rabbis to set a standard for "kosher"; there isn't something as big, or recognized, for Muslims who are following hallal standards, though there are also specially trained equivalents of shochets and rabbis to oversee hallal ritual. I mean, I understand corporate wanting someone who happens to wander in to any DD to basically have the same experience, but labeling a store as kosher or hallal and indicating it as being meat-free would then replicate the experience w/o the meats. I mean, DD was providing such signs for this guy up until 2002! WTF. Of course, even if the hallal-segment were better organized, you are very right to point out the timing and the overall discrimnation Muslims and folks from Muslim-associated parts of the world face, especially in regards to religious and ethnic rights. It just might have been easier if the franchisee had a larger, powerful, organization to fall back upon.
::sigh::
Oh, DD.
At the GC, they serve a choice of DD or Pura Vida, so of course I always picked DD because Pura Vida, despite better politics regarding coffee growing, is just kinda nasty tasting coffee. Now I'm at a loss as to which to pick!