Dudley Davis vs. Hannaford Bro. Co. 333 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2003) Title & Citation Dudley Davis vs. Hannaford Bro. Co. 333 F.3d 299 (1st Cir. 2003) Yoshi Burns Martha Chan Yoon Elizabeth

Facts… Dudley vs. Hannaford Dudley suffered massive physical trauma both externally and internally from an automobile accident (1993) Continues to have symptoms of impaired speech, loss of muscular control, inability to take even breaths, and mood swings After assisting a friend in moving, he drove to a Shop N’ Save, parking in the handicap spot (1999) The store shift leader noticed Dudley’s slow decision in alcohol and interpreted his symptoms, severe from exhaustion, to be drunkenness The cashier refused to sell alcohol to Dudley by advising of the shit leader Dudley displayed anger and attempted to explain his disabilities The manager refused to accept the sale, stating a policy saying he could not allow a purchase denied by his employees Dudley left without buying alcohol Dudley hasn’t entered a Shop N’ Save since and the store policies remain the same

Dudley vs. Hannaford Facts… Dudley filed a discrimination case on the basis of Title III of the ADA and the MHRA’s subchapter V (Public accomodation) District court denied Hannaford’s motion to dismiss the case District court rewards Dudley $5,000 civil penalty and attorney’s fees as well as enforcing discontinuation of “refusal to reconsider” policy Hannaford appeals to First Circuit Court of Appeals on the grounds that a single incident of discrimination is not protected under Title III of the ADA

Dudley vs. Hannaford Issues… 1. Does the “refusal to reconsider” policy of Shop N’ Save apply as discrimination on the basis of disability to ‘full and equal access of goods’? 2. Does section 12188 of Title III in the ADA provide Dudley with a private right of action?

Holding & Reasoning… 1. Yes… Dudley vs. Hannaford Holding & Reasoning… 1. Yes… The ‘refusal to reconsider’ policy keeps a minor group of disabled people from being able to purchase goods. Despite the small number of people affected, the court states that the ADA’s intent was to protect these individual’s rights. The court affirmed that rather than reconsidering, the store manager stated that a decision could not be reversed or reconsidered once a purchase had been rejected, and thus, was not accommodating to Dudley’s disability.

Holding & Reasoning… 1. Yes… Dudley vs. Hannaford Holding & Reasoning… 1. Yes… Under section 12188, an individual need not provide evidence of continual prohibited access to goods if the attempts are a ‘futile gesture’. In this particular case, the court states that Dudley was likely to have encountered similar discriminations in future circumstances. Therefore, he as an individual held a private right of action under Title III’s section 12188(a)(1).

Dudley vs. Hannaford Significance… Despite the small spectrum of people affected by this type of ‘refusal to reconsider’ policy, the court displayed the relevance of even the smallest minorities discriminated against being protected under the ADA.

Dudley vs. Hannaford Questions…??? 