LOS ANGELES – A discrimination lawsuit filed by a Muslim Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee who was not allowed to renew his contract with the chain because of a refusal to sell pork products can proceed, a U.S. appeals court ruled Tuesday.
The decision reversed an Illinois federal court judge’s 2004 ruling that rejected Walid Elkhatib’s argument that Dunkin’ Donuts discriminated against him based on his race by making the sale of breakfast sandwiches with bacon, ham or sausage a mandatory part of his franchise agreement.
 |
According to court papers, Elkhatib, a Palestinian Arab, has been a Dunkin’ Donuts franchisee since 1979, before the company began selling any pork.
Once breakfast sandwiches were introduced in 1984, Elkhatib’s Chicago-area Dunkin’ Donuts outlets sold them without bacon, ham or sausage for nearly 20 years. The company did not object, even providing him with a sign that said “Meat Products Not Available.”
In 2002, however, Elkhatib was told he would not be able to relocate a store or renew his franchisee agreements due to his failure to carry the full product line.
Elkhatib sued Dunkin’ Donuts and its former parent company, Allied Domecq, later that year, claiming that the chain’s refusal to renew his franchises constituted racial discrimination. (MORE)
The Islamic Workplace 
びっくり
July 11, 2007
It seems like a sad day in history, and on so many levels.
First, the issue is not about the man’s race, it is about his religion, so he shouldn’t be filing a racial discrimination suit. But that is merely a point of semantics.
He was not being asked to eat pork; merely to sell it. Certainly if a company tries to dictate an employee’s diet they are infringing on his liberty. The company certainly is within its rights to request that franchises sell their products.
If a Hindi owned a McDonald’s franchise and refused to sell beef, would that be acceptable? Or if a Jewish franchise owner refused to sell cheeseburgers, or didn’t include the (leavened) buns on Passover, would that be reasonable?
An individual that claims to have some objection to selling a companies products should not purchase a franchise of said company. In the case mentioned in the post, the franchise owner should have opened his own restaurant and sold the products he wished to sell. As it is, he is using a company’s reputation and advertising to generate business for him, but trying to create his own business.
It is a shame that the company complicated matters by making stricter policy decisions, but again, they are well within their rights to do so.
Khloud
August 4, 2007
Dear びっくり,
A Muslim life is ruled my Islamic rules that does not only involved what he eats, but also the money he earns (among many other things). If a Muslim is not allowed not eat pork for example, he’s also not allowed to trade with it. What I understood, the Muslim owner chosen the franchise because trading with its products was legitimate “from Islamic perspective” at the time he made the deal with Dunkin’ Donuts in 1979.
On the other hands, McDonald’s, Starbucks, KFC and other franchise do customize their products based on the region on the targeted clients. I have seen different menus for these stores in each country that I went to. For example, Dunkin’ Donuts where I live does not sell meet products nor sandwiches.