lsj434/chid Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co., Federal District Court of Maine 2002 FACTS: –A car accident left Mr. Dudley with brain injuries that resulted in permanent impairments –Several years later, went to a Shop ‘n Save market to buy alcohol. –Cashier refused to sell him the wine cooler he selected because she believed him to be intoxicated. –Mr. Dudley tells her he is not intoxicated, but “disabled.” –Shift supervisor and manager support her decision in part because they have an unwritten policy to never change a “refuse to sell” decision once it is made.

lsj434/chid Facts continued... Dudley sues for violation under Title III of ADA and Maine’s Human Rights Laws. Specific Title III section: –Discrimination includes the failure of place of public accommodation (Shop ‘n Save) to provide “reasonable modification” policies, practices, etc. Court considers standards/protections comparable under Title III and Maine’s laws, therefore only rules on ADA.

lsj434/chid What is required to prove discrimination under Title III? Plaintiff is a person with a disability; Defendant is a place of public accommodation; Plaintiff requested a “reasonable modification” that would be necessary to allow him to access the services of the defendant; Defendant denied that request. NOTE: request must be a “reasonable modification” as contemplated by the law.

lsj434/chid Issues Is Mr. Dudley a person with disabilities for purposes of protection under Title III? Were reasonable modifications necessary in order for him to have access as required under Title III?

lsj434/chid Holding Yes; Mr. Dudley meets the ADA definition of a person with a disability—substantially limited in MLA of walking and talking. Yes; Violation of Title III not to provide reasonable modification to the “no reconsideration” policy

lsj434/chid Reasoning Issue #1: –Court does not spend much energy debating whether Mr. Dudley meets the statutory definition. –Decision seems to be on basis of judge’s perception of him in court. Issue #2: –Modification he requested was that they “reconsider” their refusal after he told them he was disabled. –Court states that Shop ‘n Save has duty to consider his disability when making their decision. –No fundamental alteration or direct threat defense presented. –Congress intended to break down overprotective rules and policies that limit access to benefits/services/programs.