Daniel Puerini never imagined he would be accused of discrimination and publicly vilified when he opened a swanky cocktail bar in Newport in 2002 and barred anyone under 21 from entering.

Puerini just thought he was being socially responsible — preventing those under 21 from sneaking drinks in his bar when drunken driving and underage drinking were growing issues in Rhode Island.

But the state’s Commission for Human Rights determined last month that Puerini broke the law in 2005 when an employee at POP, his bar, asked a 19-year-old, who had sat down to order dinner with his parents and some family friends, to leave the premises.

While Puerini faces no fines, the commission is requiring him to run a “prominent” notice in area newspapers stating that he and the business he has since sold violated the state’s age-discrimination laws.

“The dangerous thing is it’s now public that it’s illegal to keep 18-year-olds out of a bar,” Puerini says. “It’s opened up a can of worms for many bar owners. Anybody with a bar does it. You’re not going to get in if you don’t have an ID.

“I have two kids and I don’t want them to be allowed in a bar,” Puerini adds. “If kids are in a bar, there’s only one reason for them to be there.”

The decision alarms the head of the local chapter of Mothers Against Drunk Driving and sends “a mixed message” to bar owners, says one industry leader.

At issue is a state law, under the Rhode Island Hotels and Public Places Act, that prohibits discrimination against anyone over 18 at “a place of public accommodation,” which includes “taverns,” “restaurants,” “saloons,” and “barrooms.”

Puerini draws a distinction between the Newport restaurant he continues to operate, Puerini’s, where he serves liquor but welcomes all ages, and nightspots such as POP. When he owned POP, alcoholic drinks accounted for more than three-quarters of sales, tables were not set with cutlery and tablecloths, and a large amount of the floor space was left open for a DJ and dancing. (POP is now under new management with a new format, Puerini said.)

The public accommodations law, however, doesn’t distinguish between a restaurant and bar. And that’s exactly what Robynne Alber pointed out when she formally complained to the commission about her son’s treatment at POP.

LATE ON A SUNDAY afternoon in April 2005, Alber and two friends entered POP, on Broadway’s Restaurant Row, and sat down to order a bottle of wine and appetizers. A short while later, her husband and son, Brian, walked through the front door, with its stenciled “21+” sign, and joined them.

Brian intended to get a hamburger, not alcoholic beverages, according to the commission’s findings. But before he could order, the bartender said that POP’s liquor license prohibited patrons under 21 and that the 19-year-old would have to leave.

Robynne Alber, familiar with liquor licenses from her days working in the City Clerk’s office, disagreed and called the police to confirm the license had no such requirement. Some tense discussions took place between her and the bartender and then on the phone between Alber and Puerini. Puerini then directed the bartender to ask the entire party to leave because, according to his testimony, “she was being loud and making people uncomfortable.”

The Albers left. But they did not give up. They later filed two complaints, one accusing POP of age discrimination and another alleging that POP kicked out Robynne Alber for defending her son’s rights.

In a case that Michael Evora, director of the Commission on Human Rights, says took an unusually long time to resolve, the commission ruled that it “does not know of any statute or case that prohibits a person between 18 and 21 years old from entering a [liquor] licensee for a lawful purpose, such as ordering food.”

The commissioners wrote that Puerini’s “concerns about preventing underage drinking are creditable. [His] concerns about their liability for underage drinking are understandable. However, [his] concerns do not outweigh the statutory protections provided by” the Hotel and Public Places Act. But while Brian Alber testified that “he had some embarrassment and aggravation and later felt bothered when other people brought up the incident, the commission finds that Mr. Alber’s reactions did not rise to the level of compensable pain and suffering.”

The commission, while declining to fine Puerini, granted Brian Alber the right to seek reimbursement for attorney fees.

As for Robynne Alber’s complaint, the commission concluded she may have been asked to leave simply because of her behavior, not because of her objection to POP’s policy.

“Mrs. Alber, in the heat of the moment, may not have realized the volume and tone of her speech,” the decision reads.

In a dissenting opinion, Commissioner Rochelle Lee wrote that Brian Alber should have been compensated for his “embarrassment and humiliation” and that Robynne Alber was retaliated against.

“A person who argued to stop discrimination should be afforded protection from retaliation even if she is not submissive and soft-spoken in her arguments,” Lee wrote.

Alber, reached for comment last week, declined to respond until the case is resolved. The period to file an appeal had not lapsed and further deliberations may be necessary to award attorney fees.

THAT THE COMMISSION has devoted so much time and energy to the case disturbs Puerini.

“There is real discrimination going on — people getting denied jobs, housing, all kinds of stuff. Here’s this commission, this very important group, and their time is being wasted on something that is so stupid,” he says.

Evora says the commission must consider every complaint and determine if the law has been broken.

“We are obligated to investigate and come to a conclusion and that’s what we did,” he says.

So far, the commission has had little response to the POP case. Evora prefers not to delve into its broader implications, saying only, “It is fair for me to say, as a general matter, that public accommodations cannot discriminate on the basis of age. The fact that the legal drinking age is 21 is not a defense.”

Gabrielle M. Abbatte, executive director of MADD, worries about the decision.

“As much as we respect the Human Rights Commission, one of our concerns is that some of this goes down to the safety of young people. And with some of the tragedies we’ve seen with young people being served [liquor]…we’re especially concerned,” she said. “It’s disconcerting and it’s dangerous.”

She said she is aware of nightclubs in Providence that admit those 18-plus and that it’s difficult for officials to know whether underage patrons are winding up with drinks. Some clubs use hand stamps or bracelets to identify those who are 21.

“Mr. Puerini has a right to protect himself and protect the people who enter his business. I’m not sure whose right you’re protecting — those under 21 or people trying to protect people under 21?” Abbatte said. “We are supportive of what he was doing.”

Dale J. Venturini, president and chief executive officer of the Rhode Island Hospitality and Tourism Association, said, “It sends a mixed message when a business is trying hard to obey the law with regard to serving alcohol to a minor….Now we are saying no one can control their own business.”

Attorney General Patrick C. Lynch, responding to the POP case, said in a statement, “This office is adamant that sellers of alcohol use all legal means to ensure that they only sell such beverages to those of legal age. The decision from the Commission on Human Rights has in no way changed that nor has the commission in any way contradicted that important message. We will insist that restaurants abide by all Rhode Island laws and properly exclude underage persons from consuming alcohol.”

rsalit@projo.com