ÿWPCf Ü6ô w¸ ýh¸ÁìvÏ4½ fz™I‚Fã—¿vê)ñEwNÓ2"ÛÃ|!Zô©ä5¾Œ¬÷ÈÛs3w ¬B=Ý85ÉIqéÄÞ3³}œ*<É:lé+CNå‡ØéÁh>´(#Aõ^žš$ª¡[`=†Yª¬`²:Ã/ýѶC”fEXgcõËmùé‘´ ÓðqÜç_—æØ1Û&:GI2ê‚õ&iF5(H}\†ævëñèÇF—ƒ1ñî`èÛáuŽËŒez5Toœ¾.óÉcaE9®ÒyòÇ@óØÒíàÛOA'•Mnéù)´5¾Ý×9%¸ÏÞ"ÿeÀ)mòÛ‚œ^ת-dsS¡‚eq¬5?j>Ê“l±ABrµ>xª1õc3­¬´$v,z®—fÕ,¬ï¨XÌžÍÝ>9¼ÑˆYïH»¢øð×dÓTE½SÏó•çfvcš¡ßÃËëy26Öš|#êôv°ƒŠ< i+áÏt©ÌþqdâoTLßæL-ä±éMñ·ΕeŠP”á{‹[=7~ &Jš¨ýÈ_ëîP±'6/:3Bo-‰eã˶£ïŒç'½íá3œ¾êÄ@©®D;?Þ.œÔWÌ'ê.#Á„E %M 0(S^ {w‡4‹Ÿ® m° 0DÇ 0Æ nTÑ‚% N§ >© Eç fé aë "ÿ b!!!U@)êiïS;B)}}¦ 0D33333333 BwwwwUF”UFÚUF ˜HP LaserJet 5/5M - StandardÈÈ,,,,ÈÈ0 ,X($¡¡‘–Ø.s óY‰.sy File3|xÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(d:2ã:$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€+*Þ+X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó«<þ6X9`("Courier NewTTXXxþ6X@ÉDQX@<þ6X9`(CourierTTXXwþ6X@ÉüQX@ Ó  ' Turner0Turner .   q:\template\OPINIONS\SELYA.WPTøÀTABLE A Ý ƒ ã:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€+ æ+X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔIn€any€event,€this€ruling€enjoys€substantial€support.€€òòSeeóó,Ð ° Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòPickernóó€v.€òòHoliday€Quality€Foods€Inc.óó,€293€F.3d€1133,€1137„38Ð †Ö Ð(9th€Cir.€2002);€òòStegeróó€v.€òòFranco,€Inc.óó,€228€F.3d€889,€892„94€(8thÐ \¬ ÐCir.€2000);€òòParróó€v.€òòL€&€L€Drive„Inn€Rest.óó,€96€F.€Supp.€2d€1065,Ð 2‚ Ð1077„81€(D.€Haw.€2000);€òòseeóó€òògenerallyóó€òòLujanóó€v.€òòDefenders€ofÐ X ÐWildlifeóó,€504€U.S.€555,€560„61€(1992)€(discussing€the€elementsÐ Þ. Ðrequired€to€establish€Article€III€standing).- ù-(ÖÃ9 Z(Times New Roman  àÝ ƒ ã:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€+ æ+X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€record€reflects€some€disagreement€as€to€when€DudleyÐ ° Ðsubmitted€his€complaint€to€the€MHRC.€€Under€either€party'sÐ †Ö Ðscenario,€however,€the€complaint€was€not€timely.€€òòSeeóó€Me.€Rev.Ð \¬ ÐStat.€Ann.€tit.€5,€ðð€4611.€€That€being€so,€the€district€courtÐ 2‚ Ðconcluded€that€the€disagreement€as€to€the€precise€filing€date€didÐ X Ðnot€need€to€be€resolved.€€òòSeeóó€òòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€76.€€OnÐ Þ. Ðappeal,€neither€side€questions€that€conclusion. åÝ ƒ ã:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€+ æ+X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔHannaford€makes€much€of€Fossett's€subsequent€conversationÐ ° Ðwith€Dudley,€claiming€that€Fossett€at€that€time€independentlyÐ †Ö Ðevaluated€Dudley's€cognitive€state€and€used€that€evaluation€toÐ \¬ Ðground€his€refusal€to€reconsider.€€This€argument€overlooks€theÐ 2‚ Ðdistrict€court's€supportable€finding€that€this€later€interactionÐ X Ðwas€not€causally€connected€either€to€the€denial€of€the€sale€or€toÐ Þ. Ðthe€refusal€to€reconsider.€€òòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€72„73. 1Ý ƒ ã:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€+ æ+X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€court€has€not€addressed€the€meaning€of€"futile€gesture"Ð ° Ðas€that€phrase€is€used€in€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12188(a)(1).€€We€have,Ð †Ö Ðhowever,€spoken€to€the€meaning€of€the€words€"futile€gesture"€inÐ \¬ Ðother€contexts.€€For€example,€in€òòPortela„Gonzalezóó€v.€òòÔ_ÔSec'yÔ_Ô€of€theÐ 2‚ ÐNavyóó,€109€F.3d€74€(1st€Cir.€1997),€discussing€the€proposition€thatÐ X Ðthe€prospect€of€a€futile€gesture€may€serve€to€relax€anÐ Þ. Ðadministrative€exhaustion€requirement,€we€ruled€that€"futility€.€.Ð ´  Ð.€must€be€anchored€in€demonstrable€reality.€€A€pessimisticÐ Š Ú Ðprediction€or€a€hunch€that€further€administrative€proceedings€willÐ ` ° Ðprove€unproductive€is€not€enough€to€sidetrack€the€exhaustion€rule."€Ð 6 †  ÐòòId.óó€at€78. Ý ƒ ã:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€+ æ+X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔWe€do€not€gainsay€that,€had€Hannaford's€employees€givenÐ ° ÐDudley€fair€reconsideration,€his€behavior€would€be€relevantÐ †Ö Ð(although€not€necessarily€conclusive)€in€making€a€judgment€as€toÐ \¬ Ðwhether€he€was€intoxicated.€€Here,€however,€the€lower€court'sÐ 2‚ Ðfactual€findings€foreclose€that€analytic€path. ƒÝ ƒ ã:$ÝÓ  ÓÓ=€+ æ+X‚ÐXdÐd=Óà  àÓÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€testimony€is€uncontradicted€that€Dudley€spent€the€entireÐ ° Ðday€effectuating€the€move.€€There€is€no€evidence€that€he€consumedÐ †Ö Ðany€alcoholic€beverages€during€that€time€span.(3¯$§§Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý dÿ.Courier New Regular<4šÛ 9Z+‹.Courier New Regular.Courier New RegularÝ ƒ!ÝÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑTRY,3Ø'Xà3Ø' Letter 3Ø' Letterÿ3Ø'TÑÑ ? ÑÙ*ƒ !Ùò òÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡,°ý~°X,XÔÔ‡°=°°,°ý~ÔUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsÐ ° ÐÔ#†XéNX°°=Å#ÔÔ‡„œÛ„XXéNÔFor€the€First€CircuitÔ#†XéNX„„œÛY#ÔÔ#†,X æXXXéNä#Ôó óÐ „Ô ÐÓ¹ÓÌÌßA€') °°` dE< ` AßÐ  à ÐÌNo.€02„1382Ð u Å ÐÌà@àà$ìàDAVID€DUDLEY,ˆÐ ! q Ðà@<< ìàPlaintiff,€Appellee,ˆÐ ÷ G  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ £ó  ÐÌà@<< ìàHANNAFORD€BROS.€CO.,ˆÐ OŸ  Ðà@ ìàDefendant,€Appellant.ˆÐ %u  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<Ð` AßÐ Ñ! ÐÌÓ  Óà@@ìì*ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTÐ ¶ ÐÌFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€MAINEÐ b² ÐÓ  ÓÌà@œ œ ìà[Hon.€George€Z.€Singal,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ ^ Ðà@ìì*ìàˆÌßA€') °°` dE<¹` AßÐ º  ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ Ÿï ÐÌÓ  Óà@@((ìà€Selya,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó,Ð K› ÐÌCoffin,€òòSenior€Circuit€Judgeóó,Ð ÷G ÐÌand€Lipez,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.Ð £ó  ÐÌßA€') °°` dE<N ` AßÐ O Ÿ" ÐÌÓ  ÓÓ  Óà  àòòLawrence€C.€Wingeróó€for€appellant.Ð 4!„$ Ðà  àòòJohn€M.R.€Patersonóó€and€òòBernstein€Shur€Sawyer€&€Nelsonóó€on€briefÐ  "Z% Ðfor€Maine€Restaurant€Ass'n,€Maine€Grocers€Ass'n,€Maine€Oil€DealersÐ à"0& ÐAss'n,€and€Maine€Merchants€Ass'n,€amici€curiae.Ð ¶#' Ðà  àòòPeter€M.€Riceóó,€with€whom€òòTracie€L.€Adamsonóó,€òòLipman,€Katz€&Ð Œ$Ü( ÐMcKee,€P.A.óó,€and€òòDisability€Rights€Center€of€Maineóó€were€on€brief,Ð b%² ) Ðfor€appellee.Ð 8&ˆ!* ÐÌÌÔ*‹ƒ'ddd Xdd Xdd X°(#°(#‹ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ,( dd ÔÔ+  ÔÐ º( $-º( $ ‹‹ÐÓ“ÓÐ SI)n$. `tâ@37795„„‰`tâ@‰‹‹SÐÌJune€24,€2003Ð ô)D%0 ÐÐ RHCÊ*&1" `tâ@37795 `tâ@ ‹‹RÐÐ()n$2  (ÐÓ  ÓÙ* !ÙÌÓ  ÓÌÐ  |-Ì(4? ÐÑ  ÑÓÓÑ8€- æ-XXdÖdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òSELYA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€Congress€enacted€the€AmericansÐ ° Ðwith€Disabilities€Act,€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€12101„12213€(2000)€(the€ADA),Ð xÈ Ðwith€a€view€toward€eliminating€discrimination€against€persons€withÐ $t Ðdisabilities.€€That€is€a€laudable€policy€ð"ð€but€so€is€the€policy€ofÐ Ð  Ðthe€State€of€Maine,€variously€expressed€in€statutes,€regulations,Ð | Ì Ðand€judicial€decisions,€that€constrains€retailers€against€theÐ ( x  Ðprofligate€sale€of€alcoholic€beverages€to€inebriates.€€ThisÐ Ô$  Ðdifficult€case€places€those€policies€in€tension€with€each€other.Ð €Ð  Ðà ` àThe€underlying€action€arises€out€of€a€retailer's€refusalÐ ,|  Ðto€sell€alcoholic€beverages€to€a€disabled€person€whose€symptomsÐ Ø( Ðmimic€the€traits€of€intoxication.€€The€district€court€firstÐ „Ô Ðconcluded€that€Title€III€of€the€ADA€permitted€the€maintenance€of€aÐ 0€ Ðprivate€cause€of€action.òòóó€€òòDudleyóó€v.€òòHannaford€Bros.€Co.óó,€146€F.Ð Ü, ÐSupp.€2d€82,€85„86€(D.€Me.€2001)€(òòDudley€Ióó).€€The€court€then€found,Ð ˆØ Ðfollowing€a€non„jury€trial,€that€the€retailer,€defendant„appellantÐ 4„ ÐHannaford€Bros.€Co.€(Hannaford),€had€sanctioned€a€policy€thatÐ à0 Ðforbade€the€manager€of€the€store€in€question€from€reconsidering€aÐ ŒÜ  Ðclerk's€initial€refusal€to€sell,€even€after€the€customer€revealedÐ 8!ˆ" Ðhis€disability.€€òòDudleyóó€v.€òòHannaford€Bros.€Co.óó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€69,Ð ä"4$ Ð73€(D.€Me.€2002)€(òòDudley€IIóó).€€In€the€court's€view,€this€hard„and„Ð $à& Ðfast€rule€violated€the€ADA.€€òòId.óó€at€76.Ð <&Œ!( Ðà ` àWe€agree€with€the€district€court€that€the€ADA€requires€aÐ è'8#* Ðretail€establishment€to€exhibit€more€flexibility€in€servingÐ ”)ä$, Ðdisabled€patrons.€€Accordingly,€we€affirm€the€judgment€below.Ð @+&. Ðò òI.€€BACKGROUNDó óÐ ° Ðà ` àWe€rehearse€the€facts€as€found€by€the€district€court,Ð xÈ Ðconsistent€with€record€support.€€òòSeeóó€òòSierra€Fria€Corp.óó€v.€òòDonald€J.Ð $t ÐEvans,€P.C.óó,€127€F.3d€175,€180€(1st€Cir.€1997).Ð Ð  Ðà ` àIn€1993,€plaintiff„appellee€David€Dudley€suffered€massiveÐ | Ì Ðtrauma€to€his€head,€legs,€and€internal€organs€in€an€automobileÐ ( x  Ðaccident.€€He€never€fully€recovered€from€the€effects€of€thoseÐ Ô$  Ðinjuries.€€Although€he€lost€the€manual€dexterity€needed€to€operateÐ €Ð  Ðhis€appliance€repair€business,€a€regimen€of€therapy,€stretchingÐ ,|  Ðover€several€years,€enabled€him€to€resume€a€modicum€of€activities.€Ð Ø( ÐHis€remaining€symptomatology,€however,€included€severely€impairedÐ „Ô Ðspeech,€a€pronounced€loss€of€muscular€control,€an€inability€to€takeÐ 0€ Ðeven€breaths,€and€a€tendency€toward€impulsive€mood€swings.€€TheÐ Ü, Ðdistrict€court€observed€Dudley€during€the€trial€and€described€hisÐ ˆØ Ðspeech€as€"awkward€and€often€very€difficult€to€comprehend."€€òòDudleyÐ 4„ ÐIIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€72.€€The€court€concluded€that€his€gait€andÐ à0 Ðbalance€had€been€severely€affected€by€his€injuries€and€found€hisÐ ŒÜ  Ðmovements€"exceedingly€labored."€€òòId.óó€€The€court€added€that€the€useÐ 8!ˆ" Ðof€an€appliance,€such€as€a€cane€or€a€walker,€"would€notÐ ä"4$ Ðsignificantly€ameliorate€his€condition."€€òòId.óó€Ð $à& Ðà ` àOn€Saturday,€February€27,€1999,€Dudley€moved€from€AugustaÐ <&Œ!( Ðâ âto€a€new€abode€in€Gardiner,€Maine.€€Although€friends€assisted€himÐ è'8#* Ðin€making€the€move,€Dudley€found€the€day€tiring.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€That€evening,€heÐ ° Ðâ âdrove€to€a€Shop€'n€Save€supermarket€operated€by€Hannaford,Ð \¬ Ðintending€to€purchase€alcoholic€beverages.€€He€parked€his€van€in€aÐ X Ðspot€reserved€for€handicapped€patrons,€entered€the€store,€andÐ ´  Ðproceeded€to€the€appropriate€aisle.€€He€then€began€slowly€toÐ ` ° Ðinspect€the€available€merchandise.Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€store's€shift€leader,€Armand€Cookson,€noticed€thatÐ ¸  ÐDudley€was€spending€what€seemed€to€be€an€inordinate€amount€of€timeÐ d´  Ðstaring€at€the€shelves.€€When€Dudley€finally€selected€a€four„packÐ `  Ðof€wine€coolers€and€proceeded€toward€the€checkout€counter,€CooksonÐ ¼  Ðobserved€his€rambling€gait,€drooping€eyelids,€and€flushed€face.€Ð h¸ ÐCookson€jumped€to€the€conclusion€that€Dudley€was€intoxicated.€Ð d ÐAccordingly,€Cookson€advised€the€cashier,€Erin€Donnell,€not€to€sellÐ À ÐDudley€any€alcoholic€beverages.Ð l¼ Ðà ` àDudley€placed€the€wine€coolers€on€the€counter.€€DonnellÐ h Ðgreeted€him€and€received€a€slurred€response.€€Donnell,€likeÐ Ä ÐCookson,€already€had€concluded€that€Dudley€was€drunk,€and€hisÐ pÀ  Ðslurred€speech€reinforced€her€mindset.€€She€told€Dudley€that€sheÐ !l" Ðbelieved€him€to€be€intoxicated€and,€therefore,€would€not€sell€himÐ È"$ Ðany€alcoholic€beverages.€€Dudley€immediately€became€agitated,Ð t$Ä& Ðâ âthrowing€his€arms€into€the€air€and€exclaiming,€"Here€we€go€again!"Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àSpeaking€loudly,€Dudley€tried€to€explain€that€he€was€notÐ ° Ðâ âbesotted€but€disabled.€€Donnell€was€taken€aback€by€Dudley'sÐ \¬ Ðaggressive€manner€and€stepped€away€from€the€cash€register.€€CooksonÐ X Ðthen€intervened,€reiterating€that€the€store€would€not€sell€anyÐ ´  Ðalcoholic€beverages€to€Dudley€and€removing€the€wine€coolers€fromÐ ` ° Ðthe€counter.€€Dudley€became€increasingly€frustrated;€in€his€laboredÐ  \  Ðspeech,€he€tried€to€impart€that€injuries€from€a€car€wreck,€not€theÐ ¸  Ðoverindulgent€consumption€of€alcohol,€explained€his€behavior.€Ð d´  ÐCookson€ð"ð€who€admitted€at€trial€that€he€thought€this€explanationÐ `  Ðplausible€when€given€ð"ð€informed€Dudley€that€the€store€had€a€strictÐ ¼  Ðrule€prohibiting€managers€from€reversing€a€cashier's€decision€notÐ h¸ Ðto€sell€alcoholic€beverages€to€a€customer.€€Dudley€nonethelessÐ d Ðpersisted€and€asked€to€speak€with€the€person€in€charge.Ð À Ðà ` àHenry€Fossett,€the€night€manager,€responded.€€He€hadÐ l¼ Ðobserved€much€of€what€had€transpired.€€Dudley€calmly€described€theÐ h Ðnature€of€his€disability.€€He€pointed€out€that€his€car€(clearlyÐ Ä Ðvisible€through€the€plate€glass€storefront)€was€parked€in€aÐ pÀ  Ðhandicapped€parking€place€and€bore€license€plates€denoting€that€itsÐ !l" Ðowner€was€a€person€with€a€disability.€€He€also€encouraged€FossettÐ È"$ Ðto€call€the€police€so€that€he€could€take€a€breathalyzer€test€andÐ t$Ä& Ðprove€conclusively€that€he€was€not€intoxicated.€€After€hearingÐ  &p!( ÐDudley's€explanation,€Fossett€considered€it€possible€that€DudleyÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âsuffered€from€a€disability.€€Nevertheless,€Fossett€fell€back€on€theÐ x)È$, Ðstore's€policy,€reiterating€that€management€would€not€revisit€aÐ ° Ðcashier's€refusal€to€purvey€alcoholic€beverages€to€a€customer.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àDudley€left€the€store€empty„handed.€€Since€that€evening,Ð X Ðhe€has€not€attempted€to€purchase€alcoholic€beverages€at€theÐ ´  ÐGardiner€Shop€'n€Save€or€at€any€of€Hannaford's€other€locationsÐ ` ° Ð(despite€Hannaford's€relatively€attractive€prices).€€For€its€part,Ð  \  ÐHannaford€has€not€changed€any€of€its€policies€or€practicesÐ ¸  Ðregarding€the€sale€of€alcoholic€beverages.Ð d´  Ðò òII.€€TRAVEL€OF€THE€CASEó óÐ `  Ðà ` àOn€or€about€September€1,€1999,€Dudley€filed€a€charge€ofÐ Ø( Ðdiscrimination€with€the€Maine€Human€Rights€Commission€(MHRC)€underÐ „Ô Ðthe€ADA€and€the€Maine€Human€Rights€Act€(MHRA).òòóó€€After€the€MHRCÐ 0€ Ðissued€a€right„to„sue€letter,€Dudley€brought€suit€in€the€federalÐ Ü, Ðdistrict€court€under€Title€III€of€the€ADA,€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€12181„Ð ˆØ Ð12189,€and€the€counterpart€provisions€of€Subchapter€V€of€the€MHRA,Ð 4„ ÐMe.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€tit.€5,€ðððð€4591€to€4594„F€(West€2002).€€On€JulyÐ à0 Ð10,€2001,€the€district€court€denied€Hannaford's€motion€to€dismiss,Ð ŒÜ  Ðruling€that€Dudley€could€pursue€a€private€right€of€action€under€42Ð 8!ˆ" ÐU.S.C.€ðð€12188(a)(1).€€òòSeeóó€òòDudley€Ióó,€146€F.€Supp.€2d€at€85„86.€Ð ä"4$ ÐFollowing€a€two„day€bench€trial,€the€district€court€took€the€meritsÐ $à& Ðunder€advisement.Ð <&Œ!( Ðà ` àThe€court€proceeded€to€write€a€thoughtful€rescriptÐ è'8#* Ðdelineating€Dudley's€incapacities,€describing€the€events€ofÐ ”)ä$, ÐFebruary€27,€1999,€and€determining€that€Dudley€was€disabled€withinÐ @+&. Ðthe€meaning€of€the€ADA.€€òòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€71„74.€€TheÐ ° Ðcourt€found€as€a€fact€that€"[a]t€the€Gardiner€store€it€is€anÐ \¬ Ðunwritten€rule€that€once€a€cashier€refuses€to€sell€alcohol€to€aÐ X Ðcustomer,€the€cashier's€supervisors€will€rarely,€if€ever,€reverseÐ ´  Ðthat€decision."€€òòId.óó€at€73.€€Based€in€part€on€this€finding,€theÐ ` ° Ðcourt€concluded€that€Hannaford's€actions€and€policies€violatedÐ  \  ÐDudley's€rights€under€the€ADA.€€òòId.óó€at€ò òó ó76.€€Deeming€the€ADA€and€theÐ ¸  ÐMHRA€coextensive,€òòid.óó€at€73,€the€district€court€further€found€thatÐ d´  ÐHannaford's€actions€violated€the€MHRA,€òòid.óó€at€76.Ð `  Ðà ` àThe€court€then€turned€to€the€question€of€relief.€€ActingÐ ¼  Ðpursuant€to€both€statutes,€the€court€enjoined€Hannaford€fromÐ h¸ Ðcontinuing€to€enforce€its€discriminatory€"refusal€to€reconsider"Ð d Ðpolicy€at€its€Gardiner€store.€€òòId.óó€€Then,€acting€under€the€MHRA,Ð À Ðthe€court€imposed€a€$5,000€civil€penalty€and€awarded€DudleyÐ l¼ Ðreasonable€attorneys'€fees.€€òòId.óó€at€77.€€Hannaford€now€appeals.Ð h Ðò òIII.€€ANALYSISó óÐ Ä Ðà ` àWe€divide€our€analysis€into€several€segments.€€We€beginÐ ŒÜ  Ðwith€an€overview€of€the€pertinent€provisions€of€the€ADA.€€We€thenÐ 8!ˆ" Ðdiscuss€Hannaford's€two€principal€defenses€to€the€ADA€claim.€Ð ä"4$ ÐFinally,€we€turn€to€the€MHRA€claim.Ð $à& Ðà@Ô Ô ìàò òA.€€òòThe€ADA:€€An€Overviewóó.ó óˆÐ <&Œ!( Ðà ` àThe€ADA€did€not€emerge€in€a€vacuum.€€Congress€found€thatÐ (T#* Ð"society€has€tended€to€isolate€and€segregate€individuals€withÐ °)%, Ðdisabilities,"€thus€creating€"a€serious€and€pervasive€socialÐ \+¬&. Ðproblem."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12101(a)(2).€€Such€individuals€"continuallyÐ ° Ðencounter[ed]€various€forms€of€discrimination,"€òòid.óó€ðð€12101(a)(5),Ð \¬ Ðand,€as€a€group,€"occup[ied]€an€inferior€status€in€our€society,"Ð X Ðòòid.óó€ðð€12101(a)(6).€€Mindful€of€these€inequities,€Congress€enactedÐ ´  Ðthe€ADA€"to€address€the€major€areas€of€discrimination€faced€day„to„Ð ` ° Ðday€by€people€with€disabilities,"€òòid.óó€ðð€12101(b)(4),€hoping€"toÐ  \  Ðassure€equality€of€opportunity,€full€participation,€independentÐ ¸  Ðliving,€and€economic€self„sufficiency€for€such€individuals,"€òòid.óó€ððÐ d´  Ð12101(a)(8).Ð `  Ðà ` àTitle€III€of€the€ADA€targets€discrimination€by€privatelyÐ ¼  Ðoperated€places€of€public€accommodation€(including€supermarkets€andÐ h¸ Ðother€types€of€retail€shops).€€It€sends€a€bluntly€worded€message€toÐ d Ðthose€establishments€that€fall€within€its€purview:€€you€may€notÐ À Ðdiscriminate€against€an€individual€in€the€full€and€equal€access€toÐ l¼ Ðgoods€and€services€on€the€basis€of€a€disability.Ð h Ðà ` àThe€case€before€us€involves€Title€III.€€The€law's€generalÐ Ä Ðprohibition€stipulates€that:Ð pÀ  ÐÓÓà8 ` àNo€individual€shall€be€discriminated€againstÐ !l" Ðon€the€basis€of€disability€in€the€full€andÐ ò!B# Ðequal€enjoyment€of€the€goods,€services,Ð È"$ Ðfacilities,€privileges,€advantages,€orÐ ž#î% Ðaccommodations€of€any€place€of€publicÐ t$Ä& Ðaccommodation€by€any€person€who€owns,€leasesÐ J%š ' Ð(or€leases€to),€or€operates€a€place€of€publicÐ  &p!( Ðaccommodation.Ðö&F")` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€12182(a).€€For€purposes€of€section€12182(a),€discriminationÐ ¢(ò#+ Ðâ âincludes:Ð N*ž%- ÐÓÓà8 ` à[A]€failure€to€make€reasonable€modificationsÐ ° Ðâ âin€policies,€practices,€or€procedures,€whenÐ †Ö Ðsuch€modifications€are€necessary€to€affordÐ \¬ Ðsuch€goods,€services,€facilities,€privileges,Ð 2‚ Ðadvantages,€or€accommodations€to€individualsÐ X Ðwith€disabilities,€unless€the€entity€canÐ Þ. Ðdemonstrate€that€making€such€modificationsÐ ´  Ðwould€fundamentally€alter€the€nature€of€suchÐ Š Ú Ðgoods,€services,€facilities,€privileges,Ð ` ° Ðadvantages,€or€accommodations€.€.€.€.Ð6 † ` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).€€The€remedies€contained€in€Title€III€areÐ â 2  Ðmade€available€to:Ð ŽÞ  ÐÓÓà8 ` à[A]ny€person€who€is€being€subjected€toÐ :Š  Ðdiscrimination€on€the€basis€of€disability€inÐ `  Ðviolation€of€[Title€III]€.€.€.€.€Nothing€inÐ æ6 Ðthis€section€shall€require€a€person€with€aÐ ¼  Ðdisability€to€engage€in€a€futile€gesture€ifÐ ’â Ðsuch€person€has€actual€notice€that€a€person€orÐ h¸ Ðorganization€covered€by€this€subchapter€doesÐ >Ž Ðnot€intend€to€comply€with€its€provisions.Ðd` x` x ÐÌÓÓòòId.óó€ðð€12188(a)(1).Ð À Ðà ` àDudley€invokes€these€sections,€claiming€that€Hannaford'sÐ l¼ Ðpolicies€precluded€him,€because€of€his€disability,€from€full€andÐ h Ðequal€access€to€the€store's€merchandise.Ð Ä Ðà@èèìàò òB.€€òòThe€Existence€of€a€Private€Right€of€Actionóó.ó óˆÐ pÀ  Ðà ` àHannaford's€initial€response€is€that€a€single€incident€ofÐ 8!ˆ" Ðdiscrimination€is€insufficient€to€support€a€private€right€of€actionÐ ä"4$ Ðunder€Title€III€of€the€ADA.€€In€mounting€this€argument,€HannafordÐ $à& Ðdoes€not€challenge€the€district€court's€ruling€that€Dudley€hadÐ <&Œ!( Ðâ âstanding€to€bring€his€Title€III€suit.€€òòSeeóó€òòDudley€Ióó,€146€F.€Supp.Ð è'8#* Ð2d€at€85„86.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€Rather,€Hannaford€attacks€the€court's€closelyÐ ° Ðâ ârelated€determination,€òòid.óó€at€85,€that€the€language€of€sectionÐ \¬ Ð12188(a)(1)€is€broad€enough€to€provide€a€private€right€of€actionÐ X Ðfor€an€individual€who€suffered€a€single€incident€of€discrimination.Ð ´  Ðà ` àTo€the€extent€that€this€argument€rests€on€the€propositionÐ ` ° Ðthat€Title€III€is€not€intended€to€provide€redress€for€pastÐ  \  Ðdiscrimination€that€is€unlikely€to€recur,€it€is€well„founded.€Ð ¸  ÐSection€12188(a)(1)€of€the€ADA€incorporates€the€remedies€set€forthÐ d´  Ðin€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000a„3(a).€€That€compendium€of€remedies€allows€onlyÐ `  Ðinjunctive€relief€(as€opposed€to€money€damages).€€òòSeeóó€òòNewmanóó€v.Ð ¼  ÐòòPiggie€Park€Enters.,€Inc.óó,€390€U.S.€400,€402€(1968)€(per€curiam).€Ð h¸ ÐIt€therefore€requires€some€ongoing€harm€(or,€at€least,€a€colorableÐ d Ðthreat€of€future€harm).€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€2000a„3(a)€(permitting€aÐ À Ðcivil€action€for€injunctive€relief€whenever€"there€are€reasonableÐ l¼ Ðgrounds€to€believe€that€any€person€òòis€about€to€engage€in€anyÐ h Ð[prohibited]€act€or€practiceóó")€(emphasis€supplied).€€Otherwise,€anÐ Ä Ðinjunction€would€be€pointless.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àDudley€envisions€the€persistence€of€Hannaford's€"refusalÐ !l" Ðto€reconsider"€policy€as€an€ongoing€harm.€€But€Dudley€neverÐ È"$ Ðattempted€to€purchase€alcoholic€beverages€at€the€Gardiner€Shop€'nÐ t$Ä& ÐSave€either€before€or€after€the€night€in€question,€and€HannafordÐ ° Ðasserts€that€Dudley,€in€order€to€establish€an€ongoing€harm,€mustÐ \¬ Ðprove€that€a€subsequent€effort€on€his€part€to€purchase€alcoholicÐ X Ðbeverages€at€the€Gardiner€store€would€have€been€"a€futile€gesture."€Ð ´  ÐòòId.óó€ðð€12188(a)(1).€€Without€this€embellishment,€Hannaford€says,Ð ` ° ÐDudley€is€not€being€subjected€to€discrimination€on€a€current€basis,Ð  \  Ðas€Title€III€requires.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThe€proposition€that€Hannaford€advances€ð"ð€that€a€disabledÐ d´  Ðperson€must€subject€himself€to€repeated€instances€of€discriminationÐ `  Ðin€order€to€invoke€the€remedial€framework€of€Title€III€of€the€ADAÐ ¼  Ðð"ð€turns€the€language€of€section€12188(a)(1)€on€its€head.€€TheÐ h¸ Ðfutile€gesture€provision€is€designed€to€protect€a€disabledÐ d Ðplaintiff€from€having€to€shoulder€an€undue€evidentiary€burden.€€Ð À ÐòòPickernóó€v.€òòHoliday€Quality€Foods€Inc.óó,€293€F.3d€1133,€1136€(9thÐ l¼ ÐCir.€2002).€€Yet€Hannaford's€rendition€of€the€provision€converts€itÐ h Ðinto€one€that€creates€just€such€a€burden.€€We€do€not€believe€thatÐ Ä Ðestablishing€a€private€right€of€action€under€Title€III€requires€aÐ pÀ  Ðplaintiff€to€perform€such€heroic€measures.Ð !l" Ðà ` àUnder€Title€III€of€the€ADA,€courts€typically€have€gaugedÐ È"$ Ðthe€discriminatory€effect€of€a€policy€or€practice€by€the€degree€toÐ t$Ä& Ðwhich€that€policy€or€practice€denies€access€to€a€disabledÐ  &p!( Ðindividual,€not€merely€by€the€specific€instances€in€which€theÐ Ì'#* Ðpolicy€or€practice€frustrates€the€individual.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòid.óó€atÐ x)È$, Ð1136„37€(holding€that€a€disabled€individual€suffers€an€injury€onceÐ $+t&. Ðhe€has€"become€aware€of€discriminatory€conditions€existing€at€aÐ ° Ðpublic€accommodation€.€.€.€and€is€thereby€deterred€from€visiting€orÐ \¬ Ðpatronizing€that€accommodation");€òòStegeróó€v.€òòFranco,€Inc.óó,€228€F.3dÐ X Ð889,€893€(8th€Cir.€2000)€(holding€that€a€disabled€individual€mayÐ ´  Ðinvoke€Title€III€to€demand€that€a€building€be€brought€intoÐ ` ° Ðcompliance€with€the€ADA€even€though€he€only€entered€the€buildingÐ  \  Ðonce).€€In€these€cases,€the€existence€of€a€private€right€of€actionÐ ¸  Ðunder€section€12188(a)(1)€does€not€depend€upon€how€many€attempts€aÐ d´  Ðplaintiff€has€made€to€overcome€a€discriminatory€barrier,€but,Ð `  Ðrather,€upon€whether€the€barrier€remains€in€place.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àOur€analysis,€however,€cannot€stop€there.€€This€is€not€aÐ h¸ Ð"physical€barrier"€case€and,€as€Hannaford€correctly€observes,€theÐ d Ðlikelihood€that€Dudley€would€be€denied€a€future€right€to€purchaseÐ À Ðnecessarily€turns€on€an€informed€prophecy€about€a€store€clerk'sÐ l¼ Ðsubjective€judgment.€€Moreover,€Hannaford€suggests€that€the€eveningÐ h Ðin€question€may€have€been€atypical€both€because€it€was€a€SaturdayÐ Ä Ðnight€and€because€it€followed€a€grueling€move€that€may€haveÐ pÀ  Ðexacerbated€Dudley's€symptoms.€€Were€Dudley€to€come€into€theÐ !l" ÐGardiner€store€at€a€more€tranquil€time€or€after€a€less€harrowingÐ È"$ Ðday,€this€thesis€runs,€he€might€not€encounter€the€sameÐ t$Ä& Ðdifficulties.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àThis€idiosyncratic€fact€pattern€distinguishes€the€case€atÐ Ì'#* Ðhand€from€the€mine„run€of€Title€III€cases€(like€the€prototypicalÐ x)È$, Ð"physical€barrier"€cases).€€To€the€extent€that€those€other€casesÐ $+t&. Ðenter€into€a€discussion€of€probabilities,€that€discussion€usuallyÐ ° Ðoccurs€in€the€context€of€determining€whether€a€particular€plaintiffÐ \¬ Ðenjoys€standing€to€launch€a€Title€III€claim.€€Consequently,€theÐ X Ðcourt€scrutinizes€the€likelihood€that€a€plaintiff,€absent€theÐ ´  Ðbarrier,€would€have€frequented€the€public€accommodation€in€theÐ ` ° Ðfuture.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòPickernóó,€293€F.3d€at€1138;€òòSchroedelóó€v.€òòNYUÐ  \  ÐMed.€Ctr.óó,€885€F.€Supp.€594,€598„99€(S.D.N.Y.€1995).€€AlthoughÐ ¸  Ðthose€cases€do€not€involve€a€direct€inquiry€as€to€whether€theÐ d´  Ðpractice€that€blocked€access€once€would€do€so€again,€theyÐ `  Ðnonetheless€articulate€a€standard€that€can€be€tailored€to€fit€theÐ ¼  Ðunusual€dimensions€of€the€instant€case.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àAs€a€general€matter,€recent€Title€III€cases€have€requiredÐ d Ðplaintiffs€to€show€a€real€and€immediate€threat€that€a€particularÐ À Ð(illegal)€barrier€will€cause€future€harm.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòStegeróó,€228Ð l¼ ÐF.3d€at€892;€òòDeckóó€v.€òòAm.€Haw.€Cruises,€Inc.óó,€121€F.€Supp.€2d€1292,Ð h Ð1299€(D.€Haw.€2000);€òòHoepflóó€v.€òòBarlowóó,€906€F.€Supp.€317,€321€(E.D.Ð Ä ÐVa.€1995);€òòSchroedelóó,€885€F.€Supp.€at€599;€òòAikinsóó€v.€òòSt.€HelenaÐ pÀ  ÐHosp.óó,€843€F.€Supp.€1329,€1333€(N.D.€Cal.€1994).€€This€standard€hasÐ !l" Ðbeen€adapted€from€generic€Supreme€Court€precedents€discussingÐ È"$ Ðwhether€a€plaintiff€has€standing€to€protest€a€particular€injury.€Ð t$Ä& ÐòòSeeóó€òòLujanóó€v.€òòDefenders€of€Wildlifeóó,€504€U.S.€555,€560€(1992)Ð  &p!( Ð(holding€that€"the€irreducible€constitutional€minimum€of€standing"Ð Ì'#* Ðincludes€suffering€an€"injury€in€fact"€that€is€"actual€orÐ x)È$, Ðimminent")€(citations€omitted);€òòCity€of€Los€Angelesóó€v.€òòLyonsóó,€461Ð $+t&. ÐU.S.€95,€105€(1983)€(requiring€a€plaintiff€requesting€injunctiveÐ ° Ðrelief€to€"establish€a€real€and€immediate€threat"€that€illegalÐ \¬ Ðconduct€will€occur);€òòO'Sheaóó€v.€òòLittletonóó,€414€U.S.€488,€494€(1974)Ð X Ð("Abstract€injury€is€not€enough.€.€.€.€€The€injury€or€threat€ofÐ ´  Ðinjury€must€be€both€real€and€immediate,€not€conjectural€orÐ ` ° Ðhypothetical.")€(citations€omitted).€€Even€though€no€court€has€yetÐ  \  Ðemployed€this€standard€to€determine€whether€a€plaintiff€has€aÐ ¸  Ðprivate€right€of€action€under€section€12188(a)(1),€we€deem€it€anÐ d´  Ðappropriate€way€to€answer€that€inquiry.Ð `  Ðà ` àApplying€that€standard,€we€conclude€that€Dudley€has€shownÐ ¼  Ða€real€and€immediate€threat€of€ongoing€harm.€€After€all,€theÐ h¸ Ðoffending€policy€remains€firmly€in€place;€there€is€no€dispute€thatÐ d ÐDudley,€having€just€moved€to€a€small€town,€would€have€been€likelyÐ À Ðto€patronize€the€Gardiner€Shop€'n€Save;€and€the€symptoms€of€hisÐ l¼ Ðdisability€continue€to€mimic€the€side€effects€of€intoxication.€Ð h ÐMoreover,€three€Hannaford€employees€(Donnell,€Cookson,€and€Fossett)Ð Ä Ðall€independently€concluded€that€Dudley€was€inebriated.€€TheseÐ pÀ  Ðfacts€suggest€that€Hannaford€is€overstating€the€degree€ofÐ !l" Ðrandomness€involved€in€a€store€clerk's€perceptions.€€Notably,€evenÐ È"$ ÐHannaford€does€not€venture€to€predict€a€different€result€if€theÐ t$Ä& Ðcontributing€circumstances€of€February€27€ð"ð€when€a€weary€DudleyÐ  &p!( Ðentered€the€store€on€a€Saturday€night€ð"ð€were€to€recur.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àWe€hasten€to€add€that€Dudley's€experience€on€that€eveningÐ x)È$, Ðwas€not€wholly€unique.€€The€record€shows€three€other€incidents€thatÐ $+t&. Ðare€informative€(even€though€none€of€them€involved€a€HannafordÐ ° Ðstore).€€The€first€two€occurred€prior€to€February€27,€1999.€€InÐ \¬ Ðeach€instance,€a€sales€clerk€mistook€Dudley's€disability€forÐ X Ðintoxication€and,€before€receiving€an€explanation,€refused€to€sellÐ ´  Ðhim€alcohol.€€On€the€third€occasion€(after€the€events€of€FebruaryÐ ` ° Ð27,€1999),€a€sales€clerk€again€rebuffed€Dudley€in€an€attempt€toÐ  \  Ðpurchase€alcoholic€beverages.€€On€all€three€occasions,€DudleyÐ ¸  Ðexplained€the€situation€and€the€store€relented.€€If€theseÐ d´  Ðestablishments€adhered€to€a€strict€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy,Ð `  Ðsimilar€to€Hannaford's,€Dudley's€efforts€to€purchase€liquor€wouldÐ ¼  Ðhave€been€thwarted.€€Thus,€while€there€is€no€absolute€certaintyÐ h¸ Ðthat€Dudley€would€be€denied€the€right€to€purchase€alcoholicÐ d Ðbeverages€during€a€future€visit€to€the€Gardiner€Shop€'n€Save,€theÐ À Ðlikelihood€of€a€denial€seems€substantial.€€No€more€is€exigible€toÐ l¼ Ðsupport€a€Title€III€right€of€action.Ð h Ðà ` àThis€conclusion€rests,€in€part,€on€the€backgroundÐ Ä Ðunderstanding€that€section€12188(a)(1)€negates€any€requirement€thatÐ pÀ  Ða€disabled€person€engage€in€a€futile€gesture€to€establish€theÐ !l" Ðexistence€of€a€discriminatory€policy€or€practice.€€òòSeeóó€òòPickernóó,€293Ð È"$ ÐF.3d€at€1136„37€(explaining€that€when€a€disabled€plaintiff€hasÐ t$Ä& Ðactual€knowledge€of€an€illegal€barrier€at€a€public€accommodationÐ  &p!( Ðand€is€thereby€deterred,€he€need€not€engage€in€the€futile€gestureÐ Ì'#* Ðof€attempting€to€gain€access€to€show€ongoing€harm);€òòStegeróó,€228Ð x)È$, ÐF.3d€at€892€(similar).€€We€have€scant€case€law€to€guide€us€on€howÐ $+t&. Ðfutile€a€gesture€must€be€to€satisfy€this€benchmark,׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€but€CongressÐ ° Ðclearly€meant€not€to€overburden€Title€III€claimants.€€This€isÐ \¬ Ðevident€from€the€fact€that€Title€III's€remedies€mirror€thoseÐ X Ðcontained€in€Title€II€of€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1964.€€In€enactingÐ ´  Ðthe€latter€statute,€Congress€evinced€its€understanding€"thatÐ ` ° Ðenforcement€would€prove€difficult€and€that€the€Nation€would€have€toÐ  \  Ðrely€in€part€upon€private€litigation€as€a€means€of€securing€broadÐ ¸  Ðcompliance."€€òòNewmanóó,€390€U.S.€at€401.€€It€is€fair€to€assume€thatÐ d´  ÐCongress€had€the€same€understanding€when€it€enacted€Title€III€ofÐ `  Ðthe€ADA.€€òòSeeóó€òògenerallyóó€H.R.€Rep€101„485(II),€at€126€(1990),Ð ¼  Ðòòreprintedóó€òòinóó€1990€U.S.C.C.A.N.€303,€409€(noting€Congress's€explicitÐ h¸ Ðintention€"to€make€[section€12188(a)(1)]€consistent€with€title€IIÐ d Ðof€the€Civil€Rights€Act€of€1964").€€Limiting€Title€III€relief€toÐ À Ðinstances€in€which€a€future€violation€appears€certain€to€occurÐ l¼ Ðwould€create€a€standard€far€more€demanding€than€that€contemplatedÐ h Ðby€the€congressional€objectives€that€influenced€the€ADA.Ð Ä Ðà ` àTo€sum€up,€the€question€before€us€is€whether€Dudley€hasÐ pÀ  Ðproffered€enough€evidence€to€establish€a€real€and€immediate€threatÐ !l" Ðthat€Hannaford's€policy€will€again€result€in€a€Title€III€violation.€Ð ° ÐGiven€the€remedial€purpose€underlying€the€ADA,€courts€shouldÐ \¬ Ðresolve€doubts€about€such€questions€in€favor€of€disabledÐ X Ðindividuals.€€òòSeeóó€òòArnoldóó€v.€òòUnited€Parcel€Serv.,€Inc.óó,€136€F.3dÐ ´  Ð854,€861€(1st€Cir.€1998);€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€òòTcherepninóó€v.€òòKnightóó,€389€U.S.Ð ` ° Ð332,€336€(1967)€(recognizing€the€"familiar€canon€of€statutoryÐ  \  Ðconstruction€that€remedial€legislation€should€be€construed€broadlyÐ ¸  Ðto€effectuate€its€purposes").€€So€viewed,€we€think€that€the€recordÐ d´  Ðshows€a€sufficient€probability€of€a€repeat€occurrence,€and,€in€anyÐ `  Ðevent,€Hannaford€points€to€nothing€suggesting€that€Dudley€would€beÐ ¼  Ðtreated€differently€if€the€circumstances€of€February€27€wereÐ h¸ Ðreplicated€today.€€Although€the€issue€is€close,€we€therefore€holdÐ d Ðthat€section€12188€provides€Dudley€with€a€private€right€of€action.Ð À Ðà@@ @ ìàò òC.€€òòThe€Merits€of€Dudley's€ADA€Claimóó.ó óˆÐ l¼ Ðà ` àTo€recover€under€section€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)€in€a€retailÐ 4„ Ðsale€case,€a€plaintiff€must€show€that€he€comes€within€theÐ à0 Ðprotections€of€the€ADA€as€a€person€with€a€disability,€42€U.S.C.€ððÐ ŒÜ  Ð12102(2),€and€that€the€defendant's€establishment€is€subject€to€theÐ 8!ˆ" Ðmandates€of€Title€III€as€a€place€of€public€accommodation,€òòid.óó€ððÐ ä"4$ Ð12181(7).€€Above€and€beyond€these€two€abecedarian€points,€theÐ $à& Ðplaintiff€must€show€that€the€defendant€has€a€discriminatory€policyÐ <&Œ!( Ðor€practice€in€effect;€that€he€(the€plaintiff)€requested€aÐ è'8#* Ðreasonable€modification€in€that€policy€or€practice€which,€ifÐ ”)ä$, Ðgranted,€would€have€afforded€him€access€to€the€desired€goods;€thatÐ @+&. Ðthe€requested€modification€ð"ð€or€a€modification€like€it€ð"ð€wasÐ ° Ðnecessary€to€afford€that€access;€and€that€the€defendant€nonethelessÐ \¬ Ðrefused€to€modify€the€policy€or€practice.òòóó€€òòPGA€Tour,€Inc.óó€v.Ð X ÐòòMartinóó,€532€U.S.€661,€683€n.38€(2001);€òòAmiróó€v.€òòSt.€Louis€Univ.óó,€184Ð ´  ÐF.3d€1017,€1027€(8th€Cir.€1999);€òòJohnsonóó€v.€òòGambrinus€Co./SpoetzlÐ ` ° ÐBreweryóó,€116€F.3d€1052,€1058„60€(5th€Cir.€1997).€€Upon€such€a€six„Ð  \  Ðpart€showing,€the€defendant€must€make€the€modification€unless€itÐ ¸  Ðproves€either€that€doing€so€would€alter€the€fundamental€nature€ofÐ d´  Ðits€business,€òòseeóó€òòPGA€Touróó,€532€U.S.€at€683€&€n.38,€or€that€theÐ `  Ðrequested€modification€poses€a€direct€threat€to€the€health€orÐ ¼  Ðsafety€of€others,€òòBragdonóó€v.€òòAbbottóó,€524€U.S.€624,€648„49€(1998).Ð h¸ Ðà ` àIn€the€lower€court,€Hannaford€contested€Dudley's€claimÐ d Ðthat€he€had€a€disability€within€the€meaning€of€42€U.S.C.€ððÐ À Ð12102(2)(A).€€The€district€court€resolved€this€point€in€Dudley'sÐ l¼ Ðfavor.€€òòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€74.€€Because€Hannaford€doesÐ h Ðnot€renew€this€challenge€on€appeal,€we€deem€the€argument€waived.€Ð Ä ÐòòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSladeóó,€980€F.2d€27,€30€n.3€(1st€Cir.€1992);Ð pÀ  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòZanninoóó,€895€F.2d€1,€17€(1st€Cir.€1990).€Ð !l" ÐConsequently,€Dudley€meets€the€first€prong€of€the€test.€€DudleyÐ È"$ Ðalso€meets€the€second,€as€Hannaford€concedes€that€its€GardinerÐ t$Ä& Ðstore€is€a€place€of€public€accommodation€within€the€purview€ofÐ  &p!( ÐTitle€III.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àAs€to€the€other€elements,€it€is€incontrovertible€thatÐ x)È$, ÐHannaford€had€a€hard„and„fast€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy€inÐ $+t&. Ðplace,€that€Dudley€requested€Hannaford€to€deviate€from€that€policy,Ð ° Ðthat€such€a€deviation€was€necessary€for€Dudley€to€gain€access€toÐ \¬ Ðthe€desired€goods,€and€that€his€request€was€denied.€€What€remainsÐ X Ðare€questions€concerning€the€reasonableness€of€the€requestedÐ ´  Ðmodification.€€As€to€those€questions,€Hannaford€makes€four€mainÐ ` ° Ðpoints.€€Its€primary€argument€is€that€the€district€court€erred€inÐ  \  Ðinterpreting€section€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)€to€prohibit€the€unbendingÐ ¸  Ðimplementation€of€its€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy.€€The€argumentÐ d´  Ðtakes€two€forms.€€We€consider€each€of€them.Ð `  Ðà ` àFirst,€Hannaford€posits€that€section€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)Ð ¼  Ðonly€applies€to€individuals€with€known€or€obvious€disabilities.€€ItÐ h¸ Ðsays€that€since€Dudley's€condition€was€not€of€this€nature€ð"ð€hisÐ d Ðsymptoms€were€ambiguous,€and€Hannaford's€personnel€were€uncertainÐ À Ðas€to€whether€his€behavior€stemmed€from€a€disability€or€fromÐ l¼ Ðsubstance€abuse€ð"ð€its€adherence€to€the€store's€policy€did€notÐ h Ðviolate€section€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).Ð Ä Ðà ` àHannaford€derives€this€argument€from€42€U.S.C.€ððÐ pÀ  Ð12112(b)(5)(A),€which€prohibits€employers€from€failing€to€"mak[e]Ð !l" Ðreasonable€accommodations€to€the€òòknownóó€physical€or€mentalÐ È"$ Ðlimitations€of€an€otherwise€qualified€individual€with€aÐ t$Ä& Ðdisability."€€(Emphasis€supplied.)€€Its€reliance€on€that€provisionÐ  &p!( Ðis€mislaid.€€Section€12112(b)(5)(A)€is€a€part€of€Title€I€of€the€ADAÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âð"ð€and€there€is€no€principled€basis€for€importing€it€into€Title€III.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àWhile€Title€III€imposes€certain€requirements€on€operatorsÐ ° Ðâ âof€public€accommodations€vis„„vis€their€interactions€with€theÐ \¬ Ðcitizenry€at€large,€Title€I€places€obligations€on€employersÐ X Ðregarding€their€relations€with€employees€and€prospective€employees.€Ð ´  ÐThis€distinction€is€significant.€€In€an€employment€context,€whereÐ ` ° Ðrelationships€are€personalized€and€employers€typically€have€a€basicÐ  \  Ðfamiliarity€with€their€employees,€section€12112(b)(5)(A)'s€limitedÐ ¸  Ðapplicability€to€"known€physical€or€mental"€disabilities€makesÐ d´  Ðsense;€it€takes€into€account€the€possibility€that€an€employee€orÐ `  Ðprospective€employee€may,€for€whatever€reason,€choose€not€toÐ ¼  Ðdisclose€a€disability.€€He€may,€for€example,€fear€that€if€heÐ h¸ Ðdiscloses€it,€he€will€be€disadvantaged€(the€employer€will,€say,Ð d Ðrefrain€from€promoting€or€hiring€him).€€When€such€a€disability€isÐ À Ðconcealed,€it€would€be€mindless€to€hold€the€employer€liable€forÐ l¼ Ðfailing€to€accommodate€the€(unknown)€disability.€€So€viewed,€underÐ h ÐTitle€I€obviousness€is€relevant€only€as€a€proxy€for€actualÐ Ä Ðknowledge.€€òòSeeóó€òòHedbergóó€v.€òòInd.€Bell€Tel.€Co.óó,€47€F.3d€928,€934Ð pÀ  Ð(7th€Cir.€1995)€(explaining€that€the€obviousness€of€symptomatologyÐ !l" Ðmakes€it€"reasonable€to€infer€that€an€employer€actually€knew€of€theÐ È"$ Ðdisability").Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àIn€contrast,€Title€III€offers€no€incentive€for€anÐ  &p!( Ðindividual€to€conceal€his€or€her€disability.€€The€operativeÐ Ì'#* Ðprovision,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii),€requires€a€person€withÐ x)È$, Ða€disability€to€request€a€reasonable€and€necessary€modification,Ð $+t&. Ðthereby€informing€the€operator€of€a€public€accommodation€about€theÐ ° Ðdisability.€€It€would€be€pointless€to€impose€upon€the€plaintiff€theÐ \¬ Ðburden€to€inform€the€public€accommodation's€operator€of€hisÐ X Ðdisability€but€then€exempt€the€operator,€by€judicial€fiat,€fromÐ ´  Ðaccommodating€disabilities€that€are€not€obvious.€€Congress€did€notÐ ` ° Ðplace€a€limitation€on€the€reach€of€Title€III€based€on€theÐ  \  Ðobviousness€of€an€individual's€disability,€and€it€would€be€aÐ ¸  Ðusurpation€of€congressional€authority€for€us€to€do€so€here.€€òòSeeóóÐ d´  ÐòòBatesóó€v.€òòUnited€Statesóó,€522€U.S.€23,€29„30€(1997)€("[W]hereÐ `  ÐCongress€includes€particular€language€in€one€section€of€a€statuteÐ ¼  Ðbut€omits€it€in€another€section€of€the€same€Act,€it€is€generallyÐ h¸ Ðpresumed€that€Congress€acts€intentionally€and€purposely€in€theÐ d Ðdisparate€inclusion€or€exclusion.")€(citations€and€internalÐ À Ðquotation€marks€omitted);€òò229€Main€St.€Ltd.€P'shipóó€v.€òòMass.€Dep'tÐ l¼ Ðof€Envtl.€Prot.óó€(òòIn€re€229€Main€St.€Ltd.€P'shipóó),€262€F.3d€1,€5„6Ð h Ð(1st€Cir.€2001)€(similar).ò òó ó€€For€these€reasons,€we€hold€that€theÐ Ä Ðobviousness€vel€non€of€an€individual's€disability€has€no€relevanceÐ pÀ  Ðto€the€mandates€of€Title€III.Ð !l" Ðà ` àHannaford's€next€objection€posits€that€Dudley's€requestÐ È"$ Ðwas€not€reasonable€(and,€thus,€not€within€the€protections€of€42Ð t$Ä& ÐU.S.C.€ðð€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii)).€€Hannaford€claims,€variously,€thatÐ  &p!( Ðthe€requested€modification€is€unworkable€and€that€itsÐ Ì'#* Ðimplementation€would€fundamentally€alter€the€nature€of€itsÐ x)È$, Ðbusiness.€€Joined€by€the€amici,€Hannaford€envisions€a€parade€ofÐ $+t&. Ðhorribles.€€It€tells€us€that€prohibiting€merchants€from€followingÐ ° Ða€strict€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy€would€force€retailers€toÐ \¬ Ðsell€alcoholic€beverages€to€inebriated€individuals€who€claim€to€beÐ X Ðdisabled,€thus€jeopardizing€their€licensure€and€exposing€them€toÐ ´  Ðboth€civil€and€criminal€liability€under€Maine€law.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Me.Ð ` ° ÐRev.€Stat.€Ann.€tit.€28„A,€ðððð€705(2„A),€705(3„A),€801(2),€2506.€Ð  \  ÐHannaford€and€the€amici€also€note€that€drunk€driving€is€a€salientÐ ¸  Ðpublic€health€concern€and€worry€that€the€district€court's€rulingÐ d´  Ðmay€increase€the€incidence€of€such€behavior.Ð `  Ðà ` àThese€are€valid€concerns,€and€the€ADA€requires€us€toÐ ¼  Ðweigh€them€when€determining€what€is€reasonable€under€sectionÐ h¸ Ð12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12182(b)(3)€("Nothing€inÐ d Ð[Title€III]€shall€require€an€entity€to€permit€an€individual€toÐ À Ðparticipate€in€or€benefit€from€the€goods€.€.€.€of€such€an€entityÐ l¼ Ðwhere€such€individual€poses€a€direct€threat€to€the€health€or€safetyÐ h Ðof€others.").€€That€is€not€unfamiliar€ground:€€striking€aÐ Ä Ðreasonable€balance€between€avoiding€health€and€safety€risks,€on€theÐ pÀ  Ðone€hand,€and€protecting€persons€with€disabilities€fromÐ !l" Ðdiscrimination,€on€the€other€hand,€is€an€exercise€that€lies€at€theÐ È"$ Ðcore€of€Title€III€determinations.€€òòSeeóó€òòSch.€Bd.€of€Nassau€Countyóó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòArlineóó,€480€U.S.€273,€287„88€(1987);€òòTheriaultóó€v.€òòFlynnóó,€162€F.3dÐ  &p!( Ð46,€48„49€(1st€Cir.€1998).€€Here,€our€inquiry€must€address€whetherÐ Ì'#* ÐHannaford's€unbending€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy€isÐ x)È$, Ðsufficiently€essential€to€its€stated€goals€to€justify€itsÐ $+t&. Ðdiscriminatory€effect.€€We€conclude€that€the€policy,€as€applied,€isÐ ° Ðoverinclusive,€and€that€a€more€flexible€policy€can€offer€comparableÐ \¬ Ðprotections€while€complying€with€both€the€letter€and€spirit€of€theÐ X ÐADA.Ð ´  Ðà ` àWe€start€this€phase€of€our€analysis€with€a€frankÐ ` ° Ðappraisal€of€the€doomsday€alarms€sounded€by€Hannaford€and€theÐ  \  Ðamici:€€those€concerns€are€overstated.€€Neither€the€ADA€nor€theÐ ¸  Ðdistrict€court's€ruling€guarantees€individuals€with€disabilitiesÐ d´  Ðaccess€to€alcoholic€beverages;€thus,€the€fear€that€a€claim€ofÐ `  Ðdisability€will€become€a€free€pass€for€intoxicated€individuals€toÐ ¼  Ðpurchase€liquor€is€not€well„founded.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àUnder€the€district€court's€holding,€a€merchant€needs€toÐ d Ðinitiate€a€reconsideration€only€when€a€customer€claiming€to€beÐ À Ðdisabled€presents€some€evidence€of€that€disability.€€Even€then,€theÐ l¼ Ðobligation€to€reconsider€is€not€to€be€confused€with€an€obligationÐ h Ðto€sell;€the€reconsideration€may€well€produce€a€second€refusalÐ Ä Ðwithout€in€any€way€violating€the€ADA.€€Put€bluntly,€the€districtÐ pÀ  Ðcourt's€ruling€does€not€obligate€a€merchant€to€sell€when€in€doubt.€Ð !l" ÐFor€that€reason,€Hannaford's€(and€the€amici's)€prediction€that€theÐ È"$ Ðruling€will€promote€a€host€of€social€ills€seems€farfetched.€€òòCf.óó€W.Ð t$Ä& ÐShakespeare,€òòMacbethóó,€act€I,€sc.€3,€l.€134€(1606)€(warning€thatÐ  &p!( Ð"[p]resent€fears€are€less€than€horrible€imaginings").Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àTo€be€sure,€the€district€court's€ruling€involves€otherÐ x)È$, Ðcosts.€€The€law€should€leave€ample€room€for€Hannaford€and€otherÐ $+t&. Ðsimilarly€situated€merchants€to€adopt€prophylactic€policies€toÐ ° Ðensure€that€intoxicated€individuals€will€not€be€able€freely€toÐ \¬ Ðpurchase€alcoholic€beverages.€€To€this€end,€a€bright„line€rule,Ð X Ðsuch€as€Hannaford's€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy,€offers€certainÐ ´  Ðadministrative€efficiencies.€€Moreover,€it€forecloses€potentiallyÐ ` ° Ðuncomfortable€conversations€with€combative€customers€and€sparesÐ  \  Ðstore€managers€from€making€difficult€decisions.€€But€even€though€anÐ ¸  Ðindividualized€inquiry€will€consume€more€resources€and€involve€lessÐ d´  Ðlogistical€ease,€such€an€inquiry€is€precisely€what€the€ADAÐ `  Ðrequires.€€òòSeeóó€òòPGA€Touróó,€532€U.S.€at€690€(noting€that€the€ADA€hasÐ ¼  Ða€"basic€requirement€that€the€need€of€a€disabled€person€beÐ h¸ Ðevaluated€on€an€individual€basis");€òòTheriaultóó,€162€F.3d€at€50Ð d Ð(approving€the€tailoring€of€special€policies€for€disabledÐ À Ðindividuals€as€long€as€there€is€an€"individualized€assessment"€ofÐ l¼ Ðeach€person's€disabilities);ò òó ó€òòseeóó€òòalsoóó€28€C.F.R.€ðð€36.208(c).€€ThisÐ h Ðmakes€perfect€sense,€as€Congress,€in€enacting€the€ADA,€explicitlyÐ Ä Ðwarned€that€"overprotective€rules€and€policies"€erectÐ pÀ  Ðdiscriminatory€barriers€to€people€with€disabilities.€€42€U.S.C.€ððÐ !l" Ð12101(a)(5).€€Consequently,€when€an€individual€claims€to€beÐ È"$ Ðdisabled€and€presents€some€evidence€supporting€that€claim,€theÐ t$Ä& Ðproprietor€of€a€place€of€public€accommodation€does€not€satisfy€itsÐ  &p!( Ðobligations€under€Title€III€of€the€ADA€by€refusing€to€consider€thatÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âproffer€and€responding€that€the€clerk€already€has€made€herÐ x)È$, Ðdecision.€€We€hold,€therefore,€that€the€ADA€bars€Hannaford'sÐ ° Ðunrelenting€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àHannaford's€next€contention€can€be€dispatched€moreÐ X Ðeasily.€€It€says€that,€notwithstanding€the€district€court's€factualÐ ´  Ðfinding€of€an€established,€albeit€unwritten,€"refusal€toÐ ` ° Ðreconsider"€policy,€the€personnel€at€its€Gardiner€store€did€notÐ  \  Ðfollow€that€policy€on€the€evening€in€question,€but,€rather,Ð ¸  Ðlistened€to€Dudley's€plaint,€gave€it€due€consideration,€and€onlyÐ d´  Ðthen€denied€him€the€right€to€purchase€alcoholic€beverages.Ð `  Ðà ` àIf€we€were€writing€on€a€pristine€page,€thisÐ ¼  Ðinterpretation€of€the€events€of€February€27€might€seem€plausible€ð"ðÐ h¸ Ðbut€the€page€is€not€pristine.€€The€district€court€found€as€a€factÐ d Ðthat€Cookson€rejected€Dudley's€attempted€purchase€by€informing€himÐ À Ðthat€"once€[the€clerk]€had€refused€to€sell€him€alcohol,€the€storeÐ l¼ Ðpolicy€was€not€to€reverse€that€decision€under€any€circumstances."€Ð h ÐòòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€72.€€The€court€characterizedÐ Ä ÐFossett's€intervention€in€similar€terms,€noting€that€FossettÐ pÀ  Ð"explained€to€Dudley€that€he€would€not€reverse"€the€earlierÐ !l" Ðposition.€€òòId.óó€€This€meant,€the€court€wrote,€that€Fossett€wouldÐ È"$ Ðoverride€a€cashier's€decision€only€when€"a€customer€had€alerted€himÐ t$Ä& Ðto€an€intoxication„mimicking€disability€òòbeforeóó€attempting€toÐ  &p!( Ðpurchase€alcohol."€€òòId.óó€at€73€(emphasis€in€the€original).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThat€ends€this€aspect€of€the€matter.€€When€a€districtÐ x)È$, Ðcourt€chooses€between€two€plausible€but€conflicting€interpretationsÐ $+t&. Ðof€the€evidence,€its€choice€cannot€be€clearly€erroneous.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€òòValentinóóÐ ° Ðv.€òòHosp.€Bella€Vistaóó,€254€F.3d€358,€367€(1st€Cir.€2001);€òòUnitedÐ \¬ ÐStatesóó€v.€òòRuizóó,€905€F.2d€499,€508€(1st€Cir.€1990).Ð X Ðà ` àThese€factual€findings€also€guide€us€through€Hannaford'sÐ ´  Ðremaining€two€arguments.€€Its€claim€that€"Dudley€failed€to€proveÐ ` ° Ðthat€Hannaford's€breach€of€its€duty€of€reconsideration€proximatelyÐ  \  Ðcaused€any€harm€to€Dudley,"€Appellant's€Br.€at€39,€rests€on€theÐ ¸  Ðsurmise€that€if€Hannaford's€employees€had€given€Dudley€dueÐ d´  Ðreconsideration,€they€nonetheless€would€have€thought€him€threeÐ `  Ðsheets€to€the€wind€and€refused€the€sale.€€This€is€an€interestingÐ ¼  Ðbut€irrelevant€hypothetical.€€Our€focus€is€on€the€exclusionaryÐ h¸ Ðeffect€of€Hannaford's€policy€ð"ð€its€unrelenting€refusal€toÐ d Ðreconsider,€come€what€may€ð"ð€and€the€only€issue€before€us€is€whetherÐ À Ða€reasonable€modification€was€necessary€to€afford€disabled€personsÐ l¼ Ð(like€Dudley)€access€to€goods€that€are€available€to€individualsÐ h Ðwithout€disabilities.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€12182(b)(2)(A)(ii).€€DudleyÐ Ä Ðdoes€not€need€to€prove€that€a€particular€modification€would€haveÐ pÀ  Ðworked€in€all€cases€but€only€that€such€a€modification€was€aÐ !l" Ðnecessary€and€reasonable€means€of€providing€disabled€persons€accessÐ È"$ Ðto€the€goods€in€question.ò òó ó€€The€district€court€found€that€he€hadÐ t$Ä& Ðcarried€that€burden.€€òòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€76.€€ThatÐ ° Ðfinding€is€not€clearly€erroneous.€€òòCarróó€v.€òòPMS€Fishing€Corp.óó,€191Ð \¬ ÐF.3d€1,€6€(1st€Cir.€1999);€òòSierra€Friaóó,€127€F.3d€at€181.Ð X Ðà ` àFinally,€Hannaford€suggests€that€if€it€had€a€general€dutyÐ ´  Ðto€reconsider,€that€duty€was€superseded€by€Dudley's€aggressiveÐ ` ° Ðbehavior.€€Passing€over€the€fact€that€Dudley's€behavior€probably€isÐ  \  Ðpart€and€parcel€of€the€symptomatology€related€to€his€disablingÐ ¸  Ðcondition,€the€fallacy€of€this€suggestion€lies€in€its€construction.€Ð d´  ÐIn€this€situation,€the€ADA€proscribes€mechanical€resort€to€anÐ `  Ðinflexible€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy.€€Dudley's€behaviorÐ ¼  Ðsubsequent€to€the€store's€decision€not€to€sell€is€simply€irrelevantÐ h¸ Ðto€a€determination€of€whether€the€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy€isÐ d Ðconsistent€with€the€ADA.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð À Ðà ` àWe€have€said€enough€on€this€score.€€All€equitableÐ l¼ Ðremedies€are,€in€some€sense,€discretionary.ò òó ó€€òòRosario„Torresóó€v.Ð h ÐòòHernandez„Colonóó,€889€F.2d€314,€321€&€n.6€(1st€Cir.€1989)€(en€banc).€Ð Ä ÐThe€modest€relief€granted€here€ð"ð€prohibiting€Hannaford€fromÐ pÀ  Ðmaintaining€its€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy€at€its€GardinerÐ !l" Ðemporium€ð"ð€was€not€an€abuse€of€discretion.€€Given€the€court'sÐ È"$ Ðfactual€findings,€Dudley€was€entitled€to€injunctive€relief€underÐ t$Ä& ÐTitle€III€of€the€ADA.ò òó óÐ  &p!( Ðà@xx!ìàò òD.€€òòThe€MHRA€Claimóó.ó óˆÐ ° Ðà ` àHannaford€also€challenges€the€district€court's€rulingÐ xÈ Ðthat€Hannaford's€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy€violated€the€MHRA.€Ð $t ÐòòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€at€77.€€This€challenge€lacks€force.Ð Ð  Ðà ` àIt€is€settled€law€that€the€MHRA€should€be€construed€andÐ | Ì Ðapplied€along€the€same€contours€as€the€ADA.€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.góó,€òòAbbottóó€v.Ð ( x  ÐòòBragdonóó,€107€F.3d€934,€937€n.1€(1st€Cir.€1997);€òòSoileauóó€v.€òòGuilfordÐ Ô$  Ðof€Me.,€Inc.óó,€105€F.3d€12,€14€(1st€Cir.€1997);€òòWinstonóó€v.€òòMe.Ð €Ð  ÐTech'l€Coll.€Sys.óó,€631€A.2d€70,€74€(Me.€1993).€€Thus,€ourÐ ,|  Ðdetermination€that€Hannaford's€policy€violates€the€ADA,€òòseeóó€òòsupraóóÐ Ø( ÐPart€III(C),€means€that€the€policy€also€violates€the€MHRA.Ð „Ô Ðà ` àThere€are,€however,€differences€between€the€two€statutoryÐ 0€ Ðschemes,€and€two€such€differences€are€material€here.€€Unlike€TitleÐ Ü, ÐIII€of€the€ADA,€the€enforcement€provisions€of€the€MHRA€allow€theÐ ˆØ Ðcourt€both€to€assess€monetary€penalties€(up€to€$10,000€against€aÐ 4„ Ðfirst„time€offender)€and€to€award€reasonable€attorneys'€fees€to€aÐ à0 Ðprevailing€plaintiff.€€òòSeeóó€Me.€Rev.€Stat.€Ann.€tit.€5,€ðððð€Ð ŒÜ  Ð4613(2)(B)(7),€4614.€€Ð 8!ˆ" Ðà ` àHere,€however,€the€MHRA€complaint€was€filed€out€of€time.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú6Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ׀Рä"4$ ÐIn€the€circumstances€of€this€case,€that€fact€does€not€place€theÐ $à& Ðfull€panoply€of€statutory€remedies€out€of€reach.€€While€an€untimelyÐ ° Ðcomplaint€before€the€MHRC€normally€would€preclude€any€award€ofÐ \¬ Ðcivil€penalties€or€attorneys'€fees,€the€MHRA€allows€those€remediesÐ X Ðto€be€granted€if€an€untimely€MHRA€claim€is€joined€with€a€claim€thatÐ ´  Ðdoes€not€require€administrative€exhaustion.€€òòSeeóó€òòid.óó€ðð€4622(1).€Ð ` ° ÐSince€Dudley's€ADA€claim€is€of€that€genre,€the€exception€limned€inÐ  \  Ðsection€4622(1)€applies€here.€€òòSeeóó€òòDudley€IIóó,€190€F.€Supp.€2d€atÐ ¸  Ð77.€€Hence,€we€affirm€the€imposition€of€the€civil€penalty€and€theÐ d´  Ðorder€for€payment€of€reasonable€attorneys'€fees.Ð `  Ðò òIV.€€CONCLUSIONó óÐ ¼  Ðà ` àThe€ADA€protects€disabled€individuals€against€policiesÐ „Ô Ðthat€categorically€deny€them€access€to€goods€that€are€available€toÐ 0€ Ðthe€general€population.€€Even€though€Hannaford's€offending€policyÐ Ü, Ðexcludes€only€a€tiny€number€of€disabled€individuals,€the€ADAÐ ˆØ Ðdemands€that€the€interests€of€those€individuals€be€protected.Ð 4„ Ðà ` àThus,€we€affirm€the€district€court's€binary€conclusionÐ à0 Ðthat€Dudley's€single€visit€to€the€Gardiner€store€is€sufficient,€inÐ ŒÜ  Ðthe€circumstances€of€this€case,€to€state€a€claim€under€42€U.S.C.€ððÐ 8!ˆ" Ð12188(a)(1);€and€that€the€store's€rigid€"refusal€to€reconsider"Ð ä"4$ Ðpolicy€offends€Title€III€of€the€ADA.€€Our€holding€on€the€secondÐ $à& Ðprong€is€narrow:€€we€rule€only€that€the€ADA€proscribes€the€use€byÐ <&Œ!( Ða€place€of€public€accommodation€of€an€inflexible€policy€thatÐ è'8#* Ðforecloses€any€attempt€by€an€individual€with€an€intoxication„Ð ”)ä$, Ðmimicking€disability€to€show€that€a€clerk€has€mistaken€hisÐ @+&. Ðdisability€for€drunkenness€(and,€thus,€mistakenly€refused€himÐ ° Ðaccess€to€alcoholic€beverages).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àAt€the€expense€of€belaboring€what€should€be€obvious,€weÐ X Ðemphasize€that€although€we€strike€down€Hannaford's€"refusal€toÐ ´  Ðreconsider"€policy,€we€do€so€believing€that€the€ADA€leavesÐ ` ° Ðsignificant€room€for€merchants€to€devise€alternative,€ADA„compliantÐ  \  Ðstrategies€to€ensure€the€safe€sale€of€alcoholic€beverages.€€NothingÐ ¸  Ðin€our€holding€prevents€merchants€from€exercising€caution€inÐ d´  Ðdetermining€whether€an€individual€is€sufficiently€sober€to€purchaseÐ `  Ðalcoholic€beverages.€€By€the€same€token,€nothing€in€our€holdingÐ ¼  Ðguarantees€any€individual€ð"ð€disabled€or€not€ð"ð€alcohol€on€demand.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àWe€need€go€no€further.€€For€the€foregoing€reasons,€weÐ d Ðaffirm€the€lower€court's€determination€that€Hannaford's€hard„and„Ð À Ðfast€"refusal€to€reconsider"€policy€is€in€violation€of€both€the€ADAÐ l¼ Ðand€the€MHRA.€€Consequently,€we€uphold€the€injunction,€the€civilÐ h Ðpenalty,€and€the€award€of€counsel€fees.Ð Ä ÐÌòòò òAffirmedóó.ó ó