PORTLAND – A federal judge’s ruling that Hannaford Bros. discriminated against a disabled man by refusing to sell alcohol to him puts the supermarket chain in a tough position, a spokeswoman said.

A clerk at a Gardiner Shop ‘n Save thought David Dudley was intoxicated, but Dudley’s slurred speech, poor muscle control and other problems were the result of brain damage suffered in a 1993 car accident.

Dudley explained that those disabilities were the result of the car accident, but the night manager said company policy did not allow him to overrule the decision by a clerk to refuse to sell alcohol.

U.S. District Judge Gene Carter sided with Dudley, ruling that Hannaford’s actions violated the Americans with Disabilities Act.

It wasn’t the clerk’s decision that ran afoul of the law, the judge said, but rather the company’s policy not to reconsider once it heard Dudley’s explanation of his disabilities.

The ruling leaves the grocery chain caught between tough state liquor laws and the rights of the disabled, said Cara Epstein, a spokeswoman for Hannaford in Scarborough.

“We feel there is a conflict between the state requirements and what the judge is asking us to do,” she said.

Scores of Maine grocery stores, restaurants and others are watching to see how Hannaford Bros. fares in its appeal. Several groups have filed briefs supporting the chain’s position.

Peter Rice, one of Dudley’s lawyers, said the decision reached by a federal court in March is important because it emphasizes that accommodating the disabled requires more than removing physical barriers.

“You’ve got to modify your policies and practices as well,” said Rice, the litigation director for the Disability Rights Center in Augusta.

Dudley and the center were more upset over the policy that doesn’t allow a cashier’s ruling to be reviewed than by the initial decision, Rice said.

Epstein said the company faces a liability risk if it sells alcohol to an intoxicated person after a cashier has decided not to do so.

Nonetheless, she said the company has changed its policy to allow reconsideration while the company appeals. No date has been set for the appeal hearing.