ANSWERS: 11
  • Sorry - your link did not work. Without reading the story, I would simply say discrimination is discrimination, no matter what form it takes, and the case should be allowed to proceed to a court of law which can rule on whether Dunkin' Donuts discriminated against the franchisee.
  • http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,288845,00.html The owners religion prevents him from owning a franchise, not the other way around.
  • The URL does not work. This should not be a discrimination issue, it's a contract dispute. If his contract as a franchisee mandated that he carries the entire Dunkin' Donuts product line, then he would be in breach of that contract. If he does not want to sell Dunkin' Donuts products, he should switch to Krispy Kreeme. EDIT: Now that I've read the article, YES, this is discrimination. He was allowed to not sell breakfast sandwiches before, and other franchisees are allowed to not sell breakfast sandwiches. They are singiling him out, thus discrimination.
  • No. When you agree to buy into a franchise you agree to sell their products. Their religion says that you shouldn't EAT pork. No one is forcing them to eat pork. A company cannot allow franchisers to pick and choose which items they want to sell. Uniformity and consistency are important aspects to a food service business.
  • I'm confused. whats the connection between a doughnut and pork?
  • With the information you have provided: Obviously contracts were signed. Part of a franchisee's obligation is to sell the franchises products. Going in he should have been aware of the product lines and what was expected of him. Failing to adhere to the franchisee's obligation is a perfectly justifiable reason for not renewing the contract.
  • As he had been running the franchise since 1979 without being required to sell bacon and ham, and nearby franchisees also don't sell them it seems to be in the public interest for this to be tested by the court.
  • Yes, but we need more facts to decide if he should win. Based on the information in the article, there is certainly sufficient evidence to make out a prima facie case of discrimination. However, this still may not be discrimination. Dunkin Donuts has a real interest in providing a uniform product throughout its stores. If Dunkin Donuts had allowed other franshisees to sell sandwiches without meat, then they are probably discriminating. But that is not the case here. The franchise in question is selling a different product than the other franshisees. If a customer eats a breakfast sandwich at the store in question and does not like it, the customer will most likely not by the sandwich again at a different store.
  • No, part of being a franchise is selling the products that are agreed upon in a contract, while it may not be good business sense to disallow the store to use the franchise, it is legal.
  • I would have to read the contract for the franchise to be certain, but it sounds to me like something that would either fail or get tossed out of court. ... your link is incomplete, I get nothing ...
  • no way. He's wasting everyone's time with this nonsense.

Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy