Dudley davis vs hannaford bro co 333 f 3d 299 1 st cir 2003
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 8

Dudley Davis vs. Hannaford Bro. Co. 333 F.3d 299 (1 st Cir. 2003) PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 117 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

Title & Citation. Dudley Davis vs. Hannaford Bro. Co. 333 F.3d 299 (1 st Cir. 2003). Yoshi Burns Martha Chan Yoon Elizabeth. Dudley suffered massive physical trauma both externally and internally from an automobile accident (1993)

Download Presentation

Dudley Davis vs. Hannaford Bro. Co. 333 F.3d 299 (1 st Cir. 2003)

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Dudley davis vs hannaford bro co 333 f 3d 299 1 st 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 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…


Facts1

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


Issues

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

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 reasoning1

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).


Significance

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.


Questions

Dudley vs. Hannaford

Questions…???


  • Login