Quiznos Battle

One ounce cost Rich Piotrowski and Ellen Blickman their Quiznos franchise and more than $200,000 in legal fees during a two-year battle with the sandwich company. 

   One ounce — the amount of meat a “mystery shopper” determined was lacking in a sandwich bought at the couple’s restaurant in 2006 — is also what led a judge to order Quiznos to pay the couple $350,000 and to pay their attorney’s fees. 

   In a statement, Quiznos said it didn’t agree with the judge’s Dec. 31 decision. It hasn’t announced whether it would appeal. 

   Piotrowski and Blickman, a married couple who live in Allentown, bought an existing Quiznos franchise in Coopersburg, just north of Quakertown, in February 2006. 

   Eight months after they opened, Quiznos sent a mystery shopper to visit the franchise as part of its nation wide marketing battle with competitor Subway. During the visit, the shopper bought a small prime rib cheesesteak sandwich, then took the sandwich home, pulled it apart and weighed the meat. 

   All sandwiches were to have at least five ounces of meat. The sandwich bought at the couple’s franchise only had four, court documents said. 

   Two days later, the couple received a letter from the chain, saying their franchise license had been terminated. It also instructed them to call or email Michael Daigle, then Quiznos’ in-house attorney. 

   Piotrowksi said he left repeated messages for Daigle, and at one point, threatened to call a press conference because he was angry he hadn’t received any return calls. That’s when, the couple says, the argument turned nasty. A few days later, Quiznos sued them for damages. 

   “They treated us as if we were the enemy,” Piotrowski said last week. “They treated us as if we were the absolute most despicable enemy out there.” 

   Following a five-day bench trial in Denver, where Quiznos is based, District Court Judge Morris B. Hoffman issued an opinion blasting the chain and Daigle’s treatment of Piotrowski and Blickman. 

   “I find that this whole charade of ‘terminating’ and ‘defaulting’ franchisees who failed the field test was just that — a charade — driven not by Quiznos’ genuine concern about whether its franchisees were making sandwiches to spec, but rather by its overriding public relations desire to be able to proceed with its national advertising campaign targeting Subway,” Hoffman wrote. 

   “But the public relations monster had to serve two masters — the action Quiznos took once it ferreted out noncomplying franchisees had to look serious [otherwise, what would Subway say?] but it couldn’t actually be serious, unless Quiznos was willing to lose a potentially huge number of non-complying franchisees, which it was not.” 

   Piotrowski and Blickman said they were the only franchise whose agreement was terminated. Three hundred had received termination notices, but weren’t forced to close. Quiznos said it was within its rights to pull the couple’s franchise agreement. 

   Hoffman said the weighing test was inaccurate and shouldn’t have been used to judge franchisees. And the judge agreed with the couple that Daigle treated them unfairly because they had threatened to go public with their complaint. Daigle no longer works for Quiznos. 

   “Mr. Daigle got mad at defendants because Mr. Piotrowski threatened to call a news conference, and Mr. Daigle decided at that instant that he would not afford defendants the same opportunity he had afforded every other of the roughly 300 franchisees who were terminated [to undergo another inspection],” Hoffman wrote. 

   In a bizarre twist, Quiznos allowed the couple to keep operating while the lawsuit dragged on. They were allowed to keep the Quiznos name and purchase the food from the company’s supplier, but were cut off from all other franchise support. The chain also removed the restaurant from its Web site, the couple said. 

   “We were operating, and they were selling us food,” Blickman said. “Even though they stopped taking royalties and stopped providing services, they were selling us food and were making a very nice profit on the food they were selling us. They cut us off from everything, but they were still profiting by us being open.” 

   In a statement, Quiznos President and CEO Dave Deno said the chain “respectfully disagree[s]” with Hoffman’s opinion. 

“Regardless of the outcome, it is important to be very clear — my management team and I are diligently focused on building a positive partnership with our franchisees and have instituted a number of new programs to that end,” Deno said. 

   “That’s not to say there won’t be challenges, but it is certainly not our desire to engage in litigation with our franchisees. Instead, we will continue to dedicate our resources to improving franchise profitability, strengthening relationships with franchise owners and enhancing the Quiznos brand,” Deno added. 

   Piotrowski and Blickman said they’re still waiting to see the $350,000 in damages. They said they no longer operate the franchise because they couldn’t afford to keep it going. But they still have a lease on the storefront and are behind on their rent. They said they’d like to open another business there, but have no funds to do so. 

   “Every single penny we could beg and borrow from family and friends, we did, to fight this,” Piotrowski said. “Just because it’s a billion-dollar company, does not make them right. Just because we’re an ordinary, middle-aged couple from Pennsylvania doesn’t mean the company wins and we lose. We wouldn’t accept that.” 

Crissa Shoemaker DeBree can be reached at 215-345-3186 or cshoemaker@phillyBurbs.com.