No Accident That These Two Went Into Business Together

Last year, much was written in the paperscould not legally do so without the approval of
regarding a Muslim manand an orthodox JewishDunkin' Donuts headquarters. So that any sale she
(Hasidic) woman going into business together inmade without that approval ' as was the case
two Dunkin' Donuts franchises. Both are marriedhere ' was and is null and void. Being reasonable
with four young children.people, you and I would say that, there being no
Essam "Sam" Habib and Hindy "Cindy" Gluck metinjury here, "No harm, no foul." But Dunkin' Donuts
while she was a real estate broker showing himh.q. felt differently and sued to terminate Habib
store locations. They decided to pool their lifeand Gluck's franchise for violation of their
savings and, in 2005, opened a Dunkin' Donutsfranchise agreement. Why would Dunkin' Donuts
franchise on Church Avenue at East 17th Streetdo this?
in Flatbush, Brooklyn. In 2006 they openedThe owners allege, essentially, that Dunkin' is
another Dunkin' Donuts franchise, on Flatbushtrying to rip them off. On March 23, 2008 the
Avenue and Sixth Avenue, in Brooklyn.New York Post reported that Dunkin' Donuts
Habib is the majority shareholder and Gluck ownsoffered Habib and Gluck "a munchkin-sized buyout
less than 50% of the business. He goes to hisof $400,000 for the two stores they opened -
mosque to pray on Fridays and she takes off onstores they could resell for $700,000 or $800,000
Saturdays to observe the Jewish Sabbath, leavingeach. And when the partners solicited offers
him in charge.elsewhere, Dunkin' Donuts nixed the deals - even
The doughnuts are brought in from a kosherthough the potential buyers came from a
bakery. On Jewish holidays, Ms. Gluck transferscorporate-approved list . . . ".
her share of the business to Mr. Habib, becauseHabib and Gluck memorialized their claim in their
she is not allowed to earn money on those holylegal response to Dunkin' Donuts' lawsuit against
days.them (called an Answer), a lawsuit started by
Neither Habib or Gluck take any money from theDunkin' in Brooklyn Federal court, by alleging that:
profits made from selling pork products, such as(1) Dunkin' has a "scheme . . . to sell franchises to
bacon, sausage and ham. They give away thepersons seeking to better themselves in the
sales proceeds from those items.business world";
The New York Times noted last year that(2) Dunkin' Donuts' franchise agreement is
because of a contract dispute, Mr. Habib and Ms."one-sided, unilateral and non-negotiable";
Gluck were selling their stores back to Dunkin'(3) Dunkin' seeks "to find a technical violation of
Donuts. But the truth is nastier. A fight broke outthe franchise agreement," which is one that "does
because Gluck tried to sell a small part of hernot affect the operation of the franchise or the
portion of the business to two employees.integrity or honesty of the franchisee or the
Now, Dunkin' Donuts has an interest in controllingfunds that [Dunkin gets]";
who runs its franchised restaurants. Dunkin'(4) Dunkin' deliberately looks to create a default
makes certain that the owners and operators ofof the franchise agreement to force franchisees
its restaurants are qualified to run a first-classto pay penalties or sell their stores, "all of which
operation, so that they will do nothing to tarnishenriches [Dunkin' Donuts'] bottom line";
the Dunkin' Donuts name ' a very valuable name(5) Dunkin Donuts' conduct "is unconscionable" and
and trademark, indeed. Because of this almostviolates the law and "constitutes a fraud."
every business franchise agreement in the world,What do you think, Dear Readers?
and certainly the Dunkin' Donuts franchiseCommentary: You can't know the whole story
agreement, provides that Dunkin' Donutsjust from newspaper accounts and reviewing
headquarters must approve any sale or transfercourt papers, but in my opinion it seems that
of ownership interest.Dunkin' is (what we used to call as kids)
The point is this. While Gluck tried to sell part of"dirty-fighting.
her ownership interest to her employees, she