top of page
  • Writer's pictureJon Bari

Colonial Williamsburg – Lessons Learned About the Civil Rights of the Celiac Community

Shields Tavern, Colonial Williamsburg

“When you see something that is not right, not fair, not just, you have to speak up. You have to say something; you have to do something!”

-- Congressman John Lewis (1940-2020), The "Conscience of the Congress"


In advance of the 30th Anniversary celebration of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) on July 26, 2020, I want to share with you the uplifting story of J.D., a hero to the community who has changed the world for the better for people with Celiac Disease, Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity and Food Allergies.

Disability Rights are Civil Rights

On October 6, 2019, my family attended the Children’s National Hospital Gluten-Free Expo and Education Day in Bethesda, Maryland. There were so many amazing speakers on various topics, including my wife, Leslie Bari, who was speaking on Gluten Free Travel and our Celiac journey with Jax, our 6 year old son who was diagnosed in August 2018.

Earlier in the day, we all listened intently to Mary Vargas, a civil rights attorney with Stein & Vargas, who recounted the May 31, 2019 appellate court victory of her client, J.D., in the matter of J.D. v. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.

“There was not a dry eye in the room!” -- Jon Bari, Father of Jax Bari & Founder of Celiac Journey

There were about 100 adults and children in attendance for Vargas’s “The Right to Live in the World” presentation addressing legal rights for the Celiac community. Vargas defined what a disability means and what discrimination looks like. To that end, Vargas detailed what happened to J.D. on his school field trip to Colonial Williamsburg in May 2017 when he was not allowed a seat at the table at Shields Tavern to eat his safe Gluten Free food that he had brought from home, and he was excluded from the immersive educational experience with his classmates. By the time that Vargas had shared her client’s story from the agony of defeat to the thrill of victory, there was not a dry eye in the room.

My family sat in the audience — Jax was on my lap, and Leslie and Lexi (Jax’s sister, age 14), were seated to our left. As I listened, I could not help but think that my son could have been J.D., and J.D.’s experience could have been Jax’s experience. I could not help but think that one day this could still be Jax’s experience. I had tears in my eyes, and my mind was racing…

How could my son have a disability? Vargas did an amazing job of explaining how there is a real resistance among parents of kids with Celiac Disease and food allergies to acknowledging that their child has a disability and disarming some preconceived ideas on a person’s limitations. Vargas explained the legal definition of disability:

  • Physical or mental impairment that substantially impairs one or more major life activities

  • Substantial impact to major bodily functions

For someone with Celiac Disease, eating, sleeping, thinking, learning and working are major life activities that can be impacted, and there are various bodily systems that can be impacted including the digestive system, nervous system and integumentary system.

My mind continued to race… How in 2017-2019 are people so privileged and indifferent to the plight of others, especially a child, when it comes to that child’s disability that requires a simple and reasonable accommodation – a medically required diet accommodated by bringing safe food from home? How could an 11 year old boy be removed from a restaurant on a school field trip, be forced to eat his lunch outside in the rain, be “that kid” who was humiliated in front of his classmates and teachers, and miss the educational programming that he was so excited to experience, all because he has a disability and those in power could not accommodate him by letting him eat his own safe food that he had brought from home? How could an educational institution that I had admired such as Colonial Williamsburg humiliate and exclude a child from an educational experience when he had paid admission (a plating fee), and the child had done nothing wrong? Where was the empathy? How could I prevent this from ever happening to my son? #whileceliac #celiacsucks

As the presentation continued, I felt myself holding Jax tighter, almost as if my hug could protect him against unkind people who do not understand the plight of those with Celiac Disease and food allergies. My family was so moved listening to Vargas recount the harrowing story about her clients, J.D. and his father, and the ordeal that they had experienced at Colonial Williamsburg. It was especially meaningful for Leslie and me to watch Jax enthusiastically join the audience in a spontaneous round of applause when Vargas recounted J.D.’s heroic David v. Goliath victory against the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals! (see 17:52 in video above).

Case Background

Issue: Should a child with a medically required diet (i.e., Celiac Disease, Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity, Food Allergies) be allowed to bring a homemade meal into a Colonial Williamsburg restaurant on a school field trip?

On May 11, 2017, J.D., an 11 year old boy, traveled to Colonial Williamsburg as part of a 5th Grade school field trip organized by his school in Annapolis, Maryland where J.D. was a student. The visit included an experiential learning program at Shields Tavern which is a unique feature of Colonial Williamsburg – the interior design, the costume of its servers, and the presence of interpretive reenactors creates the overall impression of being transported back in time. Shields Tavern is owned and operated by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. Although J.D. could not safely eat the food offered by Shields Tavern, J.D. was eager to participate, learn and experience about Colonial life to the fullest extent possible that his disability allowed.

According to a press release from Stein & Vargas about the lawsuit,

"Because of a severe autoimmune disorder, J.D. is unable to safely consume food containing gluten. When he ingests gluten, he experiences side effects including loss of consciousness, difficulty concentrating, asthma flares, and pain. As a result, although J.D. was a paid participant in the educational tour, J.D. was not able to eat the food that was served. J.D. was excited simply to soak in the experience even though he could not eat the food. His father who was a chaperone on the trip brought food that was safe for J.D. to eat. After J.D. was seated at a table [at Shields Tavern] with his class, management learned that he could not eat their food because of his disability and told the eleven year old that if he was going to eat his food, he needed to leave immediately. Although his father and his teacher both attempted to reason with management, J.D. was made to leave the facility with his father and eat outside in the rain while his classmates remained inside."

On July 19, 2017, J.D. and his father filed suit against the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia alleging that Colonial Williamsburg discriminated against J.D. on the basis of his eating disability in violation of the ADA.

“To feed the human spirit by sharing America’s enduring story.” - Colonial Williamsburg Mission Statement

As a father of a child with Celiac Disease, I was particularly struck by the statement made by J.D.’s father when they filed the lawsuit in July 2017,

"My son was making strides in feeling comfortable with the fact that he is different because of his inability to eat any food that has the potential of cross contamination with gluten. This changed with the irrational actions made by Shields Tavern. He was happy to experience Shields Tavern with his friends, now he is uncomfortable eating anything outside of the home because of the embarrassment they inflicted upon him. Colonial Williamsburg used J.D.’s disability to humiliate and exclude J.D. in front of his peers, making him sit out in the rain as if he weren’t even worthy of the opportunity to learn."

According to the published opinion of Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, “Following discovery, Colonial Williamsburg moved for summary judgment. The district court referred the motion to a magistrate judge, who recommended granting it. The magistrate judge found that there was a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether J.D. is disabled within the meaning of the ADA. But the judge ultimately recommended granting summary judgment because J.D. didn’t meet his burden to show that he was discriminated against because of his disability.”

In addition to losing on the District Court level, there was about $5,000 in costs assessed to J.D. who was 12 years old at the time. According to Vargas’s presentation, J.D. decided, against long odds, to appeal the District Court’s dismissal of his case because he did not want anyone else to endure what he had gone through, including his younger sister who has Celiac Disease.

In an article entitled “The Power of the Fourth,” The New York Times wrote the following about the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,

"This 148-year-old building, once the site of the Confederate Treasury, is where you go if you are appealing the decisions of federal judges or juries in Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, North Carolina or South Carolina. It’s the last stop before the Supreme Court, which, given how few cases the highest court actually hears, essentially makes it the court of last resort for those seeking justice in this region. Let the plaintiff beware, though; the Fourth Circuit is considered the shrewdest, most aggressively conservative federal appeals court in the nation."

According to Vargas, in studying the history of the civil rights movements in the United States, J.D. had observed that often times people from marginalized groups needed to lose first before they could win. And so J.D.’s case against Colonial Williamsburg proceeded to the Fourth Circuit.

About Colonial Williamsburg

According to the Colonial Williamsburg Web site,

"Colonial Williamsburg is the largest outdoor living museum in the country, upholding our educational mission through immersive, authentic 18th-century experiences and programming for our guests."

The Colonial Williamsburg Historic Area is more than 300 acres, and serves as an “outdoor history museum” with more than 600 original and reconstructed houses, outbuildings, shops, taverns, and public buildings. Interpretation by costumed employees engage visitors in dialogue with historical residents of Colonial Williamsburg and at trade sites. Shields Tavern is marketed as, “Family dining from around the world.”

As the President of The Constitutional Walking Tour of Philadelphia, which is one of the leading providers of school field trips to America’s Birthplace, I know how meaningful field trips can be to students, especially for history buffs such as J.D. By way of background, The Constitutional visits more than 20 of the most historic sites in the Independence National Historical Park area, including the Liberty Bell and Independence Hall. There is a certain sense of imaginative wonder that is sparked among the many students, teachers and chaperones who take The Constitutional and step back in time with us each school year. We often hear feedback from teachers and parents alike who recount how they remember when they were kids and visited America’s Birthplace. The bottom line is that I cannot even fathom the lack of empathy and accommodation that Colonial Williamsburg showed to J.D. and his father, and how they ruined J.D.’s capstone field trip. So much for feeding the human body safely, let alone feeding the human spirit. This was the exact opposite of hospitality!

The Fourth Circuit Ruling

When the Fourth Circuit voted 2-1 in J.D.’s favor, they vacated the District Court ruling, vacated the costs awarded to the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and remanded the case back to the District Court in Virginia for a jury trial. According to the majority opinion,

"To be sure, no one can eat whatever he or she desires without experiencing some negative health effects. Nonetheless, we must 'permit those who are disabled because of severe dietary restrictions to enjoy the protections of the ADA.' Fraser v. Goodale, 342 F.3d 1032, 1041 (9th Cir. 2003). The evidence here which a jury may choose to credit or not is that J.D. and his parents must remain vigilant because the ingestion of even a small amount of gluten may have serious consequences for J.D.’s health. Unlike a person with simple diet restrictions, J.D. says that he must monitor everything he eats. And unlike a person with simple diet restrictions, J.D. alleges that he doesn’t enjoy much (if any) margin for error."

The Fourth Circuit cited that "[t]he ADA defines a 'disability' in pertinent part as ‘a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities" and that "[e]ating is a major life activity." Colonial Williamsburg had argued that J.D. can "simply avoid" foods that contain gluten, and as a result, J.D.’s "impairment does not 'substantially limit' a major life activity." The Fourth Circuit disagreed with that argument. How 18th Century of Colonial Williamsburg to argue that those with a Gluten allergy can "simply avoid" Gluten in the United States, especially when Gluten is not even required to be labeled on packaged foods!

The Fourth Circuit also cited an integral term of the Americans with Disabilities Act, “[n]o individual shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability in the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of any place of public accommodation.”

According to the Fourth Circuit, “On appeal, J.D. argues that the district court erred in not drawing factual inferences in his favor. Specifically, he contends the district court ignored his history of repeatedly getting sick when eating purportedly gluten-free meals prepared by commercial kitchens, which (he says) shows that he was at a significant risk had he accepted the gluten-free meal offered by Shields Tavern. We agree with J.D. that this testimony is crucial to determining whether his requested modification was necessary to ensure full and equal enjoyment of the restaurant.”

Additionally, the Fourth Circuit found “that the district court erred in finding as a matter of law that J.D.’s proposed modification was not necessary to have an experience equal to that of his classmates.”

The Impact of the Fourth Circuit Ruling

Allergic Living reported that “J.D.’s attorney Mary Vargas said: ‘It’s everything. It’s the ability to participate in the things that matter: the social events, the educational opportunities – the ability to have a seat at the table.’ As for his response to the news, young J.D. said: ‘I’m feeling overwhelmed and overjoyed that the next person who comes along will not have to experience what I did.'”

The Reaction to the Fourth Circuit Ruling

Reaction from J.D. and His Attorney

The young hero in our story, J.D. (age 12), was quite poignant in his summation on the Fourth Circuit’s ruling,

“I’m feeling overwhelmed and overjoyed that the next person who comes along will not have to experience what I did.” -- J.D., Allergic Living

J.D., Source: Allergic Living

According to Vargas, the decision shows that “Celiac, Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity and food allergy can be considered disabilities and do qualify for protection under federal disability rights laws. It says that while a restaurant could serve gluten-free meals that might be sufficient for lots of people, for individuals who are acutely sensitive to gluten or to cross-contact, they may need to be able to bring their own food and they have the right to do so.”

Immediately following the Fourth Circuit ruling, The Washington Post reported that Vargas stated,

“This isn’t about a single person with Celiac or non-Celiac gluten sensitivity going into a restaurant and trying to use the restaurant as a covered picnic area. This is about a child who was part of a school trip to an educational venue who paid full price to be in the room and instead was escorted out back in the rain… The court is saying here that yes, Celiac Disease and non-Celiac gluten sensitivity can qualify as disabilities entitled to protection under Federal law.”

Reaction from the Dissenting Judge

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has long been considered one of the most conservative appellate courts in the United States. However, Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, age 75, a staunch conservative, was the lone dissenting judge in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals panel who voted against J.D.

“This is a terrible rule.” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III

By way of background, Judge Wilkinson’s father, J. Harvie Wilkinson, II, a banker, previously served on the Board of Trustees for the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation. However, Judge Wilkinson did not recuse himself from the appellate panel.

At the Oral Argument on January 29, 2019, Judge Wilkinson’s comments strongly suggested his bias in this matter, and his argumentative questions and comments seemed almost indistinguishable from Dana Rust, Esq. from McGuireWoods, the lawyer representing Colonial Williamsburg it its appeal. At one point, Judge Wilkinson argued that the record “suggests you’re [Colonial Williamsburg] being hammered for being a good citizen” to which Mr. Rust chimed in “that’s right your Honor.” (38:45 in Oral Argument).

In the 2-1 appellate decision in which Judge Wilkinson represented the sole dissenting vote, Judge Wilkinson opined, “This is a terrible rule,” and his privilege was displayed in an unadulterated manner in his blistering dissent:

  • “J.D.’s requested modification was not necessary... Allowing patrons to ignore the restaurant’s menu would disrupt this business.”

    • Celiac Journey’s Annotation – J.D. did not ignore the restaurant’s menu and did not in any way disrupt the business of the restaurant. This is a side show argument. Moreover, until such time as treatments other than a strict Gluten Free diet and a cure are found, we hope others will check their food privilege and understand that reasonable, common sense and low impact accommodations foster a sense of diversity and inclusion to help those with Celiac Disease and food allergies, especially children, safely and successfully navigate a gluten filled world.

  • “Had J.D. accepted the Tavern’s bona fide offer of a gluten-free meal, his experience would have been almost identical to that of his classmates.”

    • Celiac Journey’s Annotation – This strongly suggests that Judge Wilkinson’s implicit bias is informed by his food privilege where he does not suffer from Celiac Disease or food allergies, and for the most part, can eat almost whatever and wherever he wants. While it may have been possible for J.D. to sit there and eat food prepared by Shields Tavern alongside his classmates, J.D. may likely have had a ticking health time bomb in his body that went off at some point after his class had left Shields Tavern and lasted for quite some time into the future, as had been established in the District Court record.

  • “But allowing patrons to consume home-prepared meals would open the gates to all manner of cuisines, without any respect for the Tavern’s historical theme.”

    • Celiac Journey’s Annotation – There was nothing disrespectful about J.D.’s safe food brought from home as part of his medically required diet.

  • “Contagions as diverse as Ebola and measles might suggest the need for sanitary vigilance even to the unwary.”

    • Celiac Journey’s Annotation – yes, that is correct that Judge Wilkinson managed to use Ebola and measles (this was pre-COVID-19) as public health reasons why J.D. should not have been allowed to bring in his homemade chicken sandwich into Shields Tavern. Again, this reeks of Judge Wilkinson’s food privilege in conflating J.D.’s health and his requested accommodation of eating his homemade chicken sandwich with Ebola that is transmitted among humans through close and direct physical contact with infected bodily fluids, the most infectious being blood, feces and vomit.

Reaction from the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation

Immediately following the Fourth Circuit’s historic opinion on May 31, 2019, The Washington Post reported that the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation issued a statement that it was “disappointed by the court’s decision.” “We have a long and successful track record of preparing gluten free meals for our guests and believe doing so is a reasonable accommodation, as noted by the dissenting judge,” spokesman Joseph Straw said in a statement. “We are analyzing the decision and considering our options.”

While I am very appreciative of Colonial Williamsburg preparing Gluten Free meals as an option to those who request it, and more so for those who need it for a medically required diet and are comfortable with their food preparations and serving processes, the response from the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation to this matter continued to be 100% tone deaf. Time and time again, Colonial Williamsburg has chosen to be on the wrong side of history. The irony is that its mission is “to feed the human spirit by sharing America’s enduring story.” However, the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation seems stuck in the 18th Century whereby it would not let J.D. eat his own safe food because of their rigid “no outside policy” (which Colonial Williamsburg admitted that it does make exceptions to for people to bring in food for infants, as well as birthday cakes and wine).

This case was not about a dietary preference. This case was not about Colonial Williamsburg and their food. This case was about preserving and protecting the right to equal access and full participation in an inclusive environment. Individuals with Celiac Disease, Non Celiac Gluten Sensitivity, and food allergies must have equal, meaningful and safe access to employment, recreation, education and all facets of daily life. If that involves bringing in their own safe food to a restaurant as required for a medically necessary diet, then so be it.

The ADA is an equal opportunity law for those with disabilities. According to the United States Department of Justice,

"The ADA is one of America’s most comprehensive pieces of civil rights legislation that prohibits discrimination and guarantees that people with disabilities have the same opportunities as everyone else to participate in the mainstream of American life… the ADA is an ‘equal opportunity’ law for people with disabilities."

Do you park in a handicapped parking space if you are not disabled? No. Do public restroom facilities have handicapped accessible bathrooms? Yes. Why? Because the government makes laws for equal opportunity and because decent people in a civilized society show respect and empathy for fellow human beings with disabilities, especially children, even if it is not the law.

It’s Also a Human Rights Issue

Celiac is a disease, not a diet. The only available treatment for Celiac Disease – Gluten Free food – should be viewed in the context of a human rights issue: The Right to Adequate Food. For Celiac patients and their caretakers, the issue of food being cross contaminated with Gluten contributes to a constant situation of food and nutritional insecurity to holders of this auto-immune disorder who medically require a lifelong special dietary need. The condition of being a Celiac individual exposes the person to permanent food and nutrition insecurity, which can cause loss of quality of life, socialization, and health of the individual, both in the short and long term. According to the United Nations Office of the Commissioner for Human Rights, “Human rights are interdependent, indivisible and interrelated. This means that violating the right to [adequate] food may impair the enjoyment of other human rights, such as the right to health, education or life, and vice versa.” People with Celiac Disease require safe Gluten Free foods as a health necessity, and that this should be viewed through the lens of a citizen’s human right to adequate food. To those ends, there are societal and moreover governmental oversight and leadership required to address and maintain these human rights.

Inside Baseball – Where Were The Two Supreme Court Justices?

At the time that the case of J.D. v. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation was argued in front of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals on January 29, 2019, it is interesting to note that there were two Associate Justices of the United States Supreme serving on the Board of Trustees of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation:

  • Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States

  • Anthony M. Kennedy, retired Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States


On January 10, 2019, Colonial Williamsburg issues a press release that United States Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the Colonial Williamsburg Board of Trustees,

"'Colonial Williamsburg is an institution unique in the world and a place where we can disconnect from modern debate and reconnect with our shared, founding principles on the very ground where they were forged,' Justice Gorsuch said. 'I’m honored to support an organization that preserves and shares this moment in our history, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on the board and across the entire foundation.'"

Within days of Justice Gorsuch’s appointment to the Colonial Williamsburg Board of Trustees where he joined Justice Kennedy, “this moment in our history” was being played out in a civil rights case in the Fourth Circuit. The optics do not look good here with a current sitting Associate Justice of the Supreme Court serving in a fiduciary role on a non-profit organization’s Board of Directors, especially a foundation that is in the midst of defending claims of violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

However, this should not really be surprising. When Judge Gorsuch was nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Donald Trump, the Bazelon Center published comprehensive “Review of Disability Cases Involving Judge Neil Gorsuch” which found,

"Judge Gorsuch’s record reveals a consistently narrow view of the ADA, IDEA [Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], and other disability rights laws, as well as of constitutional protections for people with disabilities. This view is consistent with his remarks in a 2005 article, in which he wrote that civil rights lawyers should resort to lawsuits only for ‘extraordinary cases‘ and that lawsuits seeking to enforce civil rights statutes and constitutional protections on behalf of minority groups are 'bad for the country.' These statements demonstrate a misunderstanding of how Congress intended that federal civil rights laws, such as the ADA, would be enforced by ‘private attorneys general.’ Such views, together with his opinions in the cases described below, lead to the conclusion that elevating Judge Gorsuch to the Supreme Court would harm people with disabilities in their efforts to protect and advance their rights." -- The Judge David L. Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law

The case of J.D. v. Colonial Williamsburg was a watershed moment in civil rights for the Celiac, Non-Celiac Gluten Sensitivity and Food Allergy communities. It represented an example of when these impacted communities rallied together to advance the ball for the civil rights of those afflicted with food allergies and intolerances and hopefully advance the application of food law in the United States.

Bravo J.D.! Bravo Mary Vargas!

Post Script: The matter has been resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the parties so that no jury trial was needed. Nonetheless, the Fourth Circuit ruling still stands to protect others in the future who may find themselves in J.D.’s shoes.

“Where, after all, do universal human rights begin? In small places, close to home — so close and so small that they cannot be seen on any maps of the world. […] Unless these rights have meaning there, they have little meaning anywhere. Without concerted citizen action to uphold them close to home, we shall look in vain for progress in the larger world.” -- Eleanor Roosevelt, Chair of the United Nations Human Rights Commission


  • Complaint – J.D., by his father and next friend, Brian Doherty v. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division, Case 2:17-cv-00382-RBS-RJK, July 19, 2017 (Case was removed to Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News, Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge (4:17-cv-00101-RBS-RJK)).

  • Plaintiff-Appellant Brief – BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, J.D., by his father and next friend, BRIAN DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee, United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Case No. 18-1725; September 19, 2018.

  • Amicus Brief – BRIEF OF THE DISABILITY LAW CENTER OF VIRGINIA & NATIONAL DISABILITY RIGHTS NETWORK AS AMICICURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT J.D., BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, BRIAN DOHERTY; J.D., by his father and next friend, BRIAN DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Case No. 18-1725; September 26, 2018.

  • Amicus Brief – BRIEF FOR AMICI CURIAE SCOTT HAYES ( AND VIRGINIA FOOD ALLERGY ADVOCATES (VFAA) IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT J.D., BY HIS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND, BRIAN DOHERTY; J.D., by his father and next friend, BRIAN DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Case No. 18-1725; September 26, 2018.

  • Response Brief – RESPONSE BRIEF OF DEFENDANT-APPELLEE COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, J.D., by his father and next friend, BRIAN DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Case No. 18-1725; October 19, 2018.

  • Reply Brief – REPLY BRIEF OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT J.D., by his father and next friend, BRIAN DOHERTY; J.D., by his father and next friend, BRIAN DOHERTY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLONIAL WILLIAMSBURG FOUNDATION, Defendant-Appellee; United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Case No. 18-1725; November 16, 2018.

  • Appellate Opinion – J.D., by his father and next friend, Brian Doherty, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Defendant-Appellee, National Disability Rights Network; Disability Law Center for Virginia; Scott Hayes; Virginia Food Allergy Advocates, Amici Supporting Appellant. Vacated and Remanded -Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (4:17-cv-00101-RBS-RJK); United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, No. 18-1725, Argued: January 29, 2019; Decided: May 31, 2019.


bottom of page