Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co., Federal District Court of Maine 2002

1
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.

2
Facts continued . . .

• Dudley sues for violation under Title III of ADA
  and Maines 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 Maines laws, therefore only
  rules on ADA.

3
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.

4
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?

5
Holding

• Yes Mr. Dudley meets the ADA definition of a
  person with a disabilitysubstantially limited in
  MLA of walking and talking.
• Yes Violation of Title III not to provide
  reasonable modification to the no
  reconsideration policy

6
Reasoning

• Issue 1
• Court does not spend much energy debating whether
  Mr. Dudley meets the statutory definition.
• Decision seems to be on basis of judges
  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.