| belongings to a new apartment in Gardiner. Later he went to the local Hannaford Brothers supermarket to purchase four wine coolers, but was refused by the cashier who thought he was intoxicated. Dudley has a traumatic brain injury, and the symptoms can make him appear to be intoxicated. He explained this to the cashier and then again to the store's night manager. The store manager, however, simply upheld the cashier's decision to refuse to sell the wine coolers because the store has a policy that it will not reconsider a cashier's initial decision.
Peter Rice of DRC and Tracie L. Adamson of Lipman, Katz & McKee, represented Dudley at a two-day trial in the United States District Court and at an appeal before the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The District Court issued an order favorable to Dudley and Hannaford appealed. On June 24, 2003, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court decision, finding that Hannaford's reliance upon its hard and fast policy that prevents reconsideration of a cashier's initial decision constituted a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Maine Human Rights Act.
In the decision, Dudley v. Hannaford, (02-1382, June 24, 2003), the Court said that while the store had legitimate public policy concerns about the sale of alcohol to intoxicated individuals, the store must develop a more flexible policy that allows people with disabilities to enjoy goods sold by the store.
The court rejected what it characterized as Hannaford's "doomsday alarms" that a mere claim of disability will lead to the purchase of alcohol by intoxicated individuals. As the court noted, a requirement that a store initiate reconsideration of its decision when an individual presents evidence of a disability, is not a requirement to sell, but rather a requirement that it give consideration to the evidence offered by the individual. The court noted that "even though an individualized inquiry will consume more resources and involve less logistical ease, such an inquiry is precisely what the ADA requires."
Another of Hannaford's defenses that the court rejected dealt with whether or not Dudley had the right to bring his claim in court. Hannaford had argued that Dudley did not have a right to bring his claim, because there had only been a single incident in which he'd been refused a purchase. Dudley had not subsequently attempted any purchases. This defense rested upon the correct legal principle that the ADA is not intended to provide redress for past discrimination that is unlikely to recur.
The court noted, however, that the argument that "a disabled person must subject himself to repeated instances of discrimination in order to invoke the remedial framework of Title III of the ADA turns the language of (the ADA) on its head." As the court stated, the right to bring an action "does not depend upon how many attempts a plaintiff has made to overcome a discriminatory barrier, but, rather, upon whether the barrier remains in place." The court stated that as the barrier in Dudley's case -- Hannaford's policy that it would not reconsider a cashier's decision in the light of facts offered by the person with a disability -- remained firmly in effect, Dudley had the right to bring a claim on the basis of the single refusal.
The court upheld the lower court's decision that enjoined Hannaford from continuing to apply its refusal to reconsider policy. The court additionally upheld the $5,000 civil penalty assessed against the store and the award of attorneys fees awarded to the plaintiff under authority of the Maine Human Rights Act.
If you have questions please email Peter Rice, Esq. at pmrice@drcme.org. | 
