Perhaps it is appropriate that a silly dispute over what constitutes a Dunkin’ Donuts became public knowledge on April Fool’s Day.
The stories published about Walid Elkhatib, who until this week ran a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise in Westchester, sound almost like they’re some sort of practical joke – as to how gullible is the public that we’d actually believe this silly situation could occur in our society?
BUT THE STORIES are real. Elkhatib no longer gets to be a part of the Dunkin’ Donuts “family,” although he still has his snack shop in the western suburbs.
At stake is the fact that Elkhatib is Muslim, and has problems with the fact that the national chain of donut shops included the breakfast sandwiches that put ham, sausage and bacon on his menu.
Elkhatib wasn’t about to consume any of those food products, and he cited his religious beliefs for refusing to include them on the menu at his Westchester franchise.
But that goes counter to the whole concept of fast-food chains, that like to advertise about how one can get the same product at the same quality level each and every time one walks into any of their franchises.
THE IDEA OF someone deviating from the menu for any reason offended the corporate types, and they tried to pressure Elkhatib to get with the program and start serving those sausage on croissant sandwiches that some people like to think of as an elegant breakfast – but which I think of as relatively tasteless.
A federal jury ruled earlier this year that Dunkin’ Donuts did not discriminate against Elkhatib based on religious grounds for trying to get him to sell the pork products. But it wasn’t until earlier this week that Elkhatib and his attorneys agreed to give up the Dunkin’ Donuts label.
The simple fact is that the lease for the donut shop that used the Dunkin’ label is in Elkhatib’s name, and the equipment used to “make the donuts” is owned by him as well.
I don’t dispute that he has every right to run a donut shop (which he has done for 30 years), and in whatever fashion he wants to. If he can find a market for the products he wants to serve, he will make money and survive. If the lack of a specific food product causes customers to go elsewhere, then he will go out of business.
THAT IS THE “American way.” It’s basic capitalism.
But it will have to be Elkhatib Donuts, or whatever name he chooses to use in maintaining his business in Westchester.
Because the company does get some right to determine how people use its logo and image and product lines in earning a living.
What amazes me is the fact that Elkhatib was allowed to get by with a differing program for as long as he did. He began operating a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise back in 1979 – five years before the company came up with anything resembling pork or breakfast sandwiches.
FROM 1984 UNTIL 2002, Dunkin’ corporate types actually let him get by with running a Dunkin’ Donuts franchise that did not offer the full menu – even going so far as to design a sign for him to display that made it clear to customers that the “meat” products that could be found at other Dunkin’ franchises were not to be found at the Westchester location.
It was then that Dunkin’ types told Elkhatib they would not renew his franchise agreement because of his refusal to sell the pork products. That agreement expired last year, but he was allowed to keep the pink-and-orange Dunkin’ logo on his shop until the trial came to an end.
This is a case that appears to be so straightforward that it amazes me it had to go to trial and could not be resolved with an out-of-court settlement.
Dunkin’ corporate types have a right to say how their logo is being used, and to deny those people who don’t want to go along with the program the ability to use it. After all, such logos imply a brand – and a company has a right to take actions to protect their image.
BUT ELKHATIB HAS the right to run a “donut shop/snack shop/restaurant/whatever type of shop” of his choice.
In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that his new “independent” donut shop survives financially, and outdoes any other competing shops in terms of business. In fact, I wouldn’t be shocked to learn that an Elkhatib shop would do better than a Dunkin’ Donuts shop – if they were able to find a new franchise owner to compete for business in the same neighborhood.
I believe Elkhatib knows his particular neighborhood. I doubt he would have been able to run a pork-less shop for so many years (nearly two decades) if the locals who shopped there did not approve. So I will keep his shop in mind if, by chance, I happen to be in Westchester in the near future (to be honest, I rarely set foot in that part of Cook County).
And if I really feel like I have to have one of those icky-sweet Dunkin’ Donuts-type doughnuts (which I prefer to any of those things made by Krispy Kreme), there are hundreds of other locations I can turn to.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: For a case where the outcome seems so obvious, it took a few years (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-il-dunkindonuts-pork,0,3060927.story) to reach the solution achieved this week.
At a time when Barack Obama is in England trying to give a dignified presentation of the U.S., the Brits (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/dunkin-donuts-muslim-franchise-pork) also are getting this portrayal of our society at its boorish moment.
No comments:
Post a Comment