Domino's Pizza v. McDonald

[COINTELPRO]

Domino's Pizza v. McDonald

Heads up for any black companies, lawyers, doctors, accountants, IT professional or temporary employees. I heard about this case on Tavis Smiley show a year ago and just checked up on it recently. It has far reaching negative implications for us doing business or working.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/04-593.html

Background:

Domino's Pizza, Inc. ("Domino's") entered into four contracts with JWM Investments, Inc. ("JWM") under which JWM was to build restaurants and lease them to Domino's. Respondent John McDonald, an African-American, was the sole officer, director, and stockholder of JWM. Under the contract, Domino's was required to execute "estoppel certificates" if necessary for JWM to obtain financing for the restaurants. Deborah Pear Phillips, the real estate negotiator for Domino's and one of the petitioners, refused to sign the certificates. Phillips told McDonald that she would see to it that he would experience financial repercussions if he did not cease to pursue his dealings with Domino's. She said, "I don't like dealing with you people anyway," and that she would see to it Domino's did no further business with McDonald.

McDonald's calls were then forwarded to Domino's Vice President and General Counsel Joe Graziani. He told McDonald that Domino's would perform the remaining contracts only if McDonald agreed to amend them. McDonald refused to amend the contracts and Domino's refused to execute the estoppel certificates. Due to its subsequent inability to obtain financing, JWM had financial difficulties and eventually filed for bankruptcy. During the Bankruptcy proceedings, JWM filed a claim against Domino's for breach of contract that was settled for $45,000.

 

[COINTELPRO]

How does this Supreme Court decision of Domino's Pizza v. McDonald affect you?

The Supreme Court decision narrows the scope of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 & 1991. If you are employee of a temporary agency, lawyer, or accountant than the client can engage in discriminatory conduct against you. For example, when you show up for work the client can put a noose on your desk, deny access to job sites/company, or block you from getting hired by preemptively rejecting you (if you can’t work for the employer clients than you can’t be hired). I have put a couple of possible scenarios below that a black employee could face on the job working at a client.

Scenario 1

You work for Company A as the only black accountant. Company B contracts with Company A to provide accounting services. Company B reserves the right to choose the employees assigned by Company A. Company B can engage in discriminatory conduct by rejecting the black accountant based on race. The black employee or Company A has no cause of action against Company B for discrimination.

Scenario 2

As the sole shareholder of a corporation (Company A) you have an employee approach Company B to obtain a contract. Company B enters into a contract with Company A but finds out that the sole shareholder is black. Company B refuses to perform on contract based on the race of the shareholder and engages in other discriminatory conduct against the black shareholder. The black shareholder or Company A has no cause of action against Company B for discrimination.

Scenario 3

You apply to Company A to work on their contracts with Company B. Company A approaches Company B about your hiring. Company B engages in discriminatory conduct by refusing the applicant based on his prior filing of an EEOC complaint. Company A is unable to hire you since Company B rejects you for work on the contract. The black job applicant or Company A has no cause of action against Company B for discrimination.


Your employer can sue the client for breach of contract for rejecting an employee assigned but I highly doubt they want to lose the business (you will be removed). Furthermore, based on the ruling of the Supreme Court, you can't bring action against the client (neither can your employer since a corporation can't be discriminated against) for engaging in discriminatory conduct since you are an employee and most likely not a signor to the contract (your employer signed the contract).

This is my non-lawyer intrepretation so any lawyers please chime in (QueEx)...

 

[nittie]

This sounds like it only affects contractors and temps not full time employees. I know it's frustrating and even demoralizing dealing with this kinda nonsense but it works both ways. A Black person has the right to refuse doing business with racist organizations as the demographics change in the U.S. Whites will be the ones seeking protection. I wouldn't worry about this too much I know with my business I refuse to deal with anybody I don't like I see it as a priviledge.

 

[COINTELPRO]

This sounds like it only affects contractors and temps not full time employees. I know it's frustrating and even demoralizing dealing with this kinda nonsense but it works both ways. A Black person has the right to refuse doing business with racist organizations as the demographics change in the U.S. Whites will be the ones seeking protection. I wouldn't worry about this too much I know with my business I refuse to deal with anybody I don't like I see it as a priviledge.

It also affects lawyers, IT professionals, and accountants who are non-partners. You are most likely assigned by the partner to a client and not a signor to the contract. The firm has the responsibility to perform on the contract not you so a client can do all kinds of bullshit things to you (put a noose on your desk) or request no black lawyers/accountants. It could also impact black partners if the limited liability corporation signed on the contract.

I have been personally affected by this situation so you are right, it is frustrating.