The Case Against McDonald's

(Alert: August 27, 2002. Written by Janaan Hashem): The final approval hearing of the settlement agreement (click here for details) found strong opposition as six people, either representing themselves or a large group of people, objected to the settlement as it stood.

The largest step forward for the Muslim community was the fact that those who agree with the settlement (two firms representing some named plaintiffs and McDonald's) acknowledge the right for Muslims to be included. This is contrary to the preliminary approval, where the judge was satisfied with the thought that Muslim interests would be met by vegetarians promoting the vegetarian cause. Now, the next step is for the judge to determine whether Muslims should be identified as a separate group, like the Hindus, Koshers and Vegetarians, or have the Muslims skim from the settlement what has been allocated to these groups.

The Muslim presence in the courtroom was strong and noted by the judge. Even stronger was the presentation by one of the attorneys for the Muslims, Gregory M. Kazarian (the other attorney in this case is Kamran Memon), arguing that Muslims must be viewed as a separate group primarily because they are not non-meat eating people, but do eat meat if it is prepared according to Halal standards. Accordingly, money given to other organizations (like vegetarians) will not benefit members of the Muslim community who were harmed by McDonald's misrepresentation of their fries. Vegetarian objections also reiterated this perspective. Hindu objections included a statement that McDonald's was told to include Muslims in the settlement as a group, but they chose to ignore this recommendation.

The Class Plaintiffs and McDonald's seem to have difficulty understanding that the interests of Muslims and vegetarians are no more "perfectly aligned" (see Plaintiff's Memoranda at P. 22.) in this litigation than are the interests of Hindus and vegetarians, Sikhs and vegetarians and people who keep Kosher and vegetarians. The Halal dietary guidelines do not prohibit the consumption of meat. They are a unique set of requirements which were recently recognized in Illinois by the passage of the Halal Food Act. A copy of the Act is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A. Similar laws exist in California and New Jersey, with passage pending in many other states.

Another problem is with section 4 of the Settlement Agreement entitled, "Apology and Enhanced Disclosures." Notwithstanding this heading, the provisions of this section of the Settlement Agreement do not impose any obligation for enhanced disclosure. There is no commitment in the proposed Settlement Agreement by the defendants that they will change their practices regarding the identification of their ingredients, or regarding the information provided to consumers of its product. The Settlement Agreement simply does not obligate McDonald's to improve its disclosures. Furthermore, McDonald's has not changed its in-store signage and nutritional charts. This should be required with a specified deadline. The fact that they have decided to voluntarily supplement their disclosure on matters following is good corporate policy-but it is not enforceable under this Settlement Agreement. It is worth noting that even after the proposed settlement was reported on by the press, and even after McDonald's had made its commitment to change its practices, occasions of crew members misidentifying McDonald's french fries as "vegetarian" or acceptable for vegetarians continue. McDonald's, through its Hamburger University, Camp Wanamac, and through other venues, dedicates substantial resources to the training and continuing development of its restaurant-based staff. McDonald's commitment to addressing the harm caused could, and should be, demonstrated by an enforceable commitment to adjust its training protocol. It should undertake to train its managers and assistant managers on how to avoid providing information to consumers which could be misleading and which might lead them to consume products precluded by their faith, incompatible with their decisions regarding health and diet, or inconsistent with their moral and ethical beliefs.

Common amongst the primary objectors was the notion of collusion. The judge heard from attorneys objecting to the settlement that they were subject to coercion into agreeing to the settlement and noticed similar, unprofessional, unethical treatment to the named plaintiffs. Despite the objections from those supporting the settlement (not McDonald's because they were not part of the collusion allegations) the judge allowed one specific attorney to recall the facts she witnessed involving collusion. These facts were later supported by two other attorneys complaining of such behavior.

The proposed Settlement provides for incentive payments for three named plaintiffs' who were added to the case for the sole and exclusive purpose of ratifying the proposed settlement. These payments represent nothing more than signing bonuses which were offered as incentives to select class members to secure their support for the proposed Settlement. This tactic constitutes collusion in pursue of Settlement. It must be rejected. The Court should deny incentive payments to these individuals. If you support the effort to seek its approval, you are rewarded with money. If you dare object, you forfeit the money allocated for your benefit.

Left with this to think about, the judge will give his final decision on October 4. What will be interesting to observe is how he can include the Muslim population and not change the settlement itself, thus approving it, or deny the settlement and take things back to the drawing board, which he is reluctant to do. For those of you who did not make it to this hearing, keep this in mind: a bus driver from Rockville, Maryland came all the way to Chicago to state his objection to the court. This is a man acting on principle. Remember, no one will stand for us until we stand first.

(Alert: August 19, 2002-Final settlement in case): A court hearing will be held on Thursday August 22, 2002 for the final settlement in the McDonald's case. We are requesting that at least 100 Muslims from Chicago show up there. Please arrive no later than 1:30 p.m. (the hearing starts at 2:00 p.m. but it takes about half an hour to go through security clearance and to be seated in front of the judge) at the Daly Center located at 50 W. Washington Street in downtown Chicago, room 2305. The Center's number is 312-443-5500.

(Alert July 2002): Thank you to all who responded to our request for action in connection with the McDonalds case. We are pleased to report that over 450 Objections were filed on behalf of the Muslim community and over 2000 individuals preserved their right to pursue a separate action against McDonalds by Opting Out of the Class Action. Our papers were sent to McDonalds accompanied by an invitation to opening a dialogue regarding the concerns which were reflected by our call for action and your strong response. They responded quickly indicating that they recognized our concerns and were eager to meet and discuss how those concerns could be addressed. We have engaged in some preliminary dialogue leading to a formal exchange of ideas and proposals which is set for August 5th. We are hopeful that McDonalds expression of concern and interest are reflected at the meeting and in the commitments which they are willing to make to address our concerns. We will keep you posted.

Muslims and Vegetarians File Appeal against McDonald’s NEW
McDonald's Corporate Responsibility & American Muslims' Civic Responsibility NEW
McDonald's:the latest on the case
The McDonald's Survey
US Fast food industry faces lawsuits
The Settlement Agreement
McSpotlight
Muslims making push to join McDonald's fries settlement
A description of the case
The letter to opt out of the lawsuit
The letter to object to the lawsuit
More information about the Zabiha diet
Sound Vision's Halal and Healthy Page