Can a private company refuse to sell a franchise to someone solely based on being black? This question was a result of a recent conversation regarding Chick-fil-A only selling their franchises to Christians. I thought that was discriminatory, but was told a private company can do anything they want because they are privately owned. I find this very hard to believe is the case in 2021. Can anyone shed some light on this subject?
Can a private company refuse to sell a franchise to someone solely based on being black? No. Racial discrimination in franchising by a private company in the United States is prohibited by 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and also under many state laws such as Cal. Civil Code §§ 51, 51.8, and is further informed by the definitions of 42 U.S.C. § 2000e. See also, this commentary. 42 U.S.C. § 1981 provides in the pertinent part: All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts . . . as is enjoyed by white citizens. . . . [T]he term ‘make and enforce contracts’ includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship. Many cases have enforced this protection from racial discrimination in the franchising context. See, e.g., Int’l House of Pancakes, Inc. v. Albarghouthi, No. 04-cv02264-MSK-MEH, 2007 WL 2669117 (D. Colo. Sept. 6, 2007); Elkhatib v. Dunkin’ Donuts, Inc., 493 F.3d 827 (7th Cir. 2007); Harper v. BP Exploration &amp; Oil, Inc., 134 F.3d 371 (6th Cir. 1998); Pointer v. Bldg. Stars Advantage, No. 4:03-cv-01237-HEA, Bus. Franchise Guide (CCH) ¶ 12, 960 (E.D. Mo. Apr. 26, 2004), aff’d, 115 F. App’x 321 (8th Cir. 2004); Home Repair, Inc. v. Paul W. Davis Sys., Inc., No. 98 C 4074, 1998 WL 721099 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 9, 1998) (motion to dismiss); 2000 WL 126905 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 1, 2000) (motion for summary judgment); Smith v. Molly Maid, Inc., 415 F. Supp. 2d 905 (N.D. Ill. 2006). Employment law protections rarely apply to franchise relationships. See Adcock v. Chrysler Corp., 166 F.3d 1290, 1294 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that because Chrysler did not control day-to-day operations of dealership, dealer would not be considered employee for sex discrimination claim); Mangram v. Gen. Motors Corp., 108 F.3d 61, 63 (4th Cir. 1997) (holding that General Motors dealers are not employees of General Motors and that plaintiff, at best, demonstrated that as a participant in General Motors’ Minority Dealership Development Program he was a trainee for a nonemployment relationship with General Motors for purposes of age discrimination claim). This question was a result of a recent conversation regarding Chick Filet only selling their franchises to Christians. I thought that was discriminatory, but was told a private company can do anything they want because they are privately owned. I find this very hard to believe is the case in 2021. Can anyone shed some light on this subject? Not all kinds of discrimination are prohibited by Section 1981 (which was enacted shortly after the adoption of the 14th Amendment in the post-U.S. Civil War context and is the only or primary federal non-discrimination law applicable to franchise contracts), although state law protections are often broader. See Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604, 613 (1987)(holding that § 1981 does not address discrimination claims based on national origin); Runyon v. McCrary, 427 U.S. 160, 167 (1976) (noting that § 1981 does not cover discrimination based on gender or religion); Kodish v. United Air Lines, Inc., 628 F.2d 1301, 1303 (10th Cir. 1980) (finding age discrimination claim not addressed by § 1981). In particular, discrimination on the basis of religion in franchising contracts is not prohibited by federal law, although it is prohibited by state law in some states. But a franchisee in operating the franchise business must follow all state and federal non-discrimination laws that apply to public accommodations with respect to their customers, and must follow all state and federal non-discrimination laws that apply to employees with respect to their employees.
In general, you can be banned from a private business for any or no reason, unless it is because of something not allowed by US law or state law (in the state where the mall is located) such as race, nationality, sexual orientation, etc.
This doesn't sound like fraud (against you, at least), but it does sound like an unfair or deceptive trade practice, which is outlawed by Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act and perhaps the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law, both of which prohibit unfair and deceptive trade practices. I don't know about Pennsylvania, but the FTC has on many occasions taken action against companies for engaging in just this kind of behavior. To find out whether you would be able to take action against the other company, you'd want to find a good competition lawyer in Pennsylvania. For some more basic background on the FTC's rules, check out this primer.
The other answers don't quite spell it out, so I will. There is no law in the UK requiring landlords or their agents to show a property to all parties interested - refusal to show a property may however in some cases fall under discrimination laws, so that might be something you can pursue if you feel the refusal is due to your gender, race or sexual orientation. While they may have to justify their data collection under the GDPR, that is entirely separate to their refusal to show the property to you.
I’m guessing you have seen a sign in a business that read - “Management reserves the right to refuse service to anyone”. At least in the US, they do not need a reason as long as the reason isn’t unlawful discrimination. They can decide not to serve you.
Under 42 USC 2000a(a): All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin. So a business may be generally prohibited from discriminating against you on the basis of your religion, but I don't know of any law that requires stores to accommodate whatever aversion or hostility you may feel toward gay people or their allies. On the contrary, such businesses have a First Amendment right to display such decor. So legislation that required them to stop speaking out in support of nice gay people would be struck down as unconstitutional.
I believe that under federal law, the franchise owner cannot avoid overtime in this way. A similar case was considered by the Labor Department in 2005 (FLSA2005-17NA): This is in response to your request for an opinion concerning the application of the overtime requirements of section 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to employees who work at two different health care facilities operated by one management company. It is our opinion that all hours worked at any of the facilities must be combined for the purpose of calculating hours worked under the FLSA. The letter explains the logic pretty clearly, with citations. When an employee is "jointly" employed by two or more employers, then the hours are all combined for overtime purposes. 29 CFR 791.2(b) explains how "jointly" is determined: Where the employee performs work which simultaneously benefits two or more employers, or works for two or more employers at different times during the workweek, a joint employment relationship generally will be considered to exist in situations such as: (1) Where there is an arrangement between the employers to share the employee's services, as, for example, to interchange employees; or (2) Where one employer is acting directly or indirectly in the interest of the other employer (or employers) in relation to the employee; or (3) Where the employers are not completely disassociated with respect to the employment of a particular employee and may be deemed to share control of the employee, directly or indirectly, by reason of the fact that one employer controls, is controlled by, or is under common control with the other employer. Paragraph (1) applies: the two employers (the two restaurants) have an arrangement to share the employee's services (the owner is explicitly dividing their hours). Paragraph (3) also applies: both employers are under common control, since the same person owns both. They certainly are "not completely dissociated". The same logic would seem to apply even if the two locations are different restaurants, or different types of businesses. The 2005 letter explains further: Factors that are relevant in finding joint employment include, for example, whether there are common officers or directors of the companies; the nature of the common management support provided; whether employees have priority for vacancies at the other companies; whether there are any common insurance, pension or payroll systems; and whether there are any common hiring seniority, recordkeeping or billing systems. These also seem likely to apply in your hypothetical cases.
The "Crabs" game can be legal if it is seen as a form of parody. That is one of the forms of "fair use" that allows copying (within limits). This is to allow the use of limited amounts of copying for critical or "mocking" pieces, which are considered a form of free speech. Two other issues come into play under "fair use." The first is whether or not this is "commercial" (yes) or non-commercial (e.g educational) use. That is mildly negative for "Crabs" but by no means dispositive. The second is the likely market impact, whether the new use tends to compete with the old use in its "home" market, or whether it is likely to open a new market of a very different, perhaps "opposite" audience that might later buy the original as a "crossover." The "Crabs" game seems to address the "green" or at least "pro animal" (PETA) market. If the defendant can show that the "Cards" market addresses e..g., your "inner Nazi," making it "opposite," that would be ideal. It would be less convincing if "Cards" were addressing e.g. human rights, because that might be seen to overlap with the green market in terms of social conscience.