labor lawAdivision of labor law center

Walid Elkhatib of Chicago is a Muslim who says that eating or handling pork is against his religion. The 57-year-old was born in Jerusalem and moved to Chicago in 1971. He owns two Dunkin’ Donuts franchises in the Windy City. Today, Elkhatib is engaged in an intense legal battle with the parent company. The issue is whether Elkhatib has the legal right to refuse to serve foods that he considers “unclean” for religious reasons. 

Elkhatib worked as a bus driver in Chicago until he saved enough money to buy his first Dunkin’ Donuts franchise in 1979. Since then he purchased two additional stores, in suburban Berkeley and Westchester, and sold the original location. His total investment is just under $600,000. 

Critics say that Elkhatib should have chosen to operate a business that doesn’t serve pork.  He responds that he did. When Elkhatib opened his Dunkin’ Donuts franchise 30 years ago, the company sold no products containing pork. Elkhatib says he intentionally chose the Dunkin’ Donuts franchise because it didn’t involve serving pork or alcohol, two products that he is forbidden to handle under Muslim dietary laws.  

Elkhatib’s store specialized in coffee, milk, juice and donuts for several years. Dunkin’ Donuts gradually introduced heartier fare beginning in 1984 as a way to boost profits and compete with fast food franchises. Over the years, the sandwiches offered increased, especially as carb-conscious dieters consumed fewer of the chain’s tasty pastries.  

Problems started when Dunkin’ Donuts began to include breakfast sandwiches containing sausage, bacon and ham. At first the items were optional for franchisees. Elkhatib added breakfast sandwiches with egg and cheese to the menu, but declined to serve pork products. Initially, he says, the company supported his decision. Dunkin’ Donuts even supplied signs informing customers that no meat products were available at this location.  

Beginning in 2002, however, Dunkin’ Donuts required all franchisees—including Elkhatib—to serve breakfast sandwiches including pork.  

Ironically, Elkhatib would have a stronger case if he worked for someone else, instead of owning his own small business. A number of Islamic workers have successfully filed suits for religious discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. In 1999, federal courts found that the Newark Police Department had to make an exception to its policy forbidding facial hair for officers. Two Muslim officers maintained that having a beard was part of their religious expression, and won the case. A number of suits have required employers to allow Muslim women to wear the hijab, loose-fitting clothing and scarves that cover the body, leaving only the hands and face visible.  

As the nation’s workforce becomes more diverse, many companies have simply adjusted. It is not unusual for employers to accommodate Islamic dress and grooming requirements, and the need to pray at five specific times per day.  

Elkhatib’s legal problems intensified when he wanted to relocate his Westchester store to a busier area. Initially, he says, the corporate real estate division supported his plan. When they learned that he refused to sell breakfast sandwiches containing pork at the new location, it became a problem. Shortly afterwards, Elkhatib was informed that his two current franchise contracts, for the existing stores, would not be renewed. 

Elkhatib points out that both of his stores are highly rated for cleanliness, customer service, marketing and product quality. Dunkin’ Donuts counters that company policy requires that owners offer the complete line approved products.  

Elkhatib’s attorney determined that he didn’t have a case against the company for religious discrimination, because he is not an employee. Instead, the attorney argues that the company is engaged in racial discrimination against Elkhatib because he is an Arab.  There is legal precedent for the case. In the past, African-American franchisees have sued other retail chains when they were denied the opportunity to expand in all-white neighborhoods. The law puts the onus on the franchisor to explain why they are favoring one franchisee over another.  

In court papers, the company argues that it would be inappropriate for a Hindu owner of a burger franchise to refuse to sell meat. The same applies to their business, the company’s lawyers contend. Elkhatib has an obligation to sell the approved products – all of the approved products.  

One judge found that Elkhatib’s case involved religious discrimination, which unfortunately isn’t addressed in corporate law.  

However, a panel of 3 judges found on appeal that Dunkin’ Donuts allows franchisees in at least 3 other Chicago stores to operate without serving breakfast sandwiches that contain pork. One of those franchisees even had his franchise contract renewed after Elkhatib’s was denied.  

The ruling may come to late to save Elkhatib’s businesses. The franchise on his Berkeley store has expired, and the agreement on the Westchester store will expire in a few months. Still, the small business owner is not sorry that he fought an unfair company policy.  

“What is life without dignity and your beliefs?” Elkhatib asks.  

Last 10 posts by Amelia

• Colorado Reduces Minimum Wage in 2010 - November 20th, 2009
• New Law Expands FMLA and NDAA for Military Families - October 30th, 2009
• California Approves Exempt Salary Reduction - October 16th, 2009
• 3 New Illinois Laws - October 9th, 2009
• New Definition of Disability - September 25th, 2009
• E-Verify Regulations - September 18th, 2009
• New USERRA Regulations - September 2nd, 2009
• E-Verify News - August 26th, 2009
• New Tennessee Workers’ Compensation Law - August 19th, 2009
• Louisiana Minimum Wage - August 3rd, 2009