Obese Man Sues White Castle Hamburgers

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the deep fried dill pickle part is the best bit in there. NOT.

[Audley Strange]

Belly bombers are from Satan.

Have you tried deep-fried White Castle burgers... ?

That would be sen as practically a low fat vegan salad amongst the goblins that live around here.

[Coito ergo sum]

He's not suing because eating the fast food made him fat....he's suing because he is fat, and he wants White Castle to have bigger, more comfortable seating so fat people can eat more hamburgers there....

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/oversiz ... z1Xl9wReYh

....it's a civil right, doncha know?

Sadly, it probably is, although I don't think the ADA has defined morbid obesity as a "disability" quite yet.

It is if it's caused by a diagnosed physiological disorder.

There's a breakfast/lunch cafe in Boulder that has the world's most uncomfortable seating. It's hard, tight, and uncomfortable and the booths and tables are jammed quite close together. It's quite deliberate. They have a line of people standing outside the door every morning, summer and winter, to get one of the best short-order breakfasts around. They guarantee that you'll get your meal within five minutes of sitting down, but they also expect you to eat it and get the hell out and let someone else eat, and they have no qualms about booting you out of a table if you're simply idling about during their rush periods.

That's the defense that White Castle should use, as if they need one. I think they should just ban him from all their outlets permanently for being a pain in their ass. And they should counter-sue him for damages and costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

You don't "counter sue" for a person filing a frivolous lawsuit. If the lawsuit is frivolous, they follow the procedures in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, assuming it's in federal court which it probably is. No countersuits are filed.

The case most likely isn't frivolous anyway, since to be frivolous the case must be shown to not be well-grounded in the law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or repeal of existing law. There have been cases since 1993 that have held that morbid obesity can be a disability and if it is a disability, then as a place of public accommodation they have to reasonably accommodate. There are so many arguable points of fact in there that the to claim the case as frivolous, we'd pretty much have to have the guy be a skinny marathon runner claiming to be obese and disabled....

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the deep fried dill pickle part is the best bit in there. NOT.

Deep fried pickles are phenomenal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I think the deep fried dill pickle part is the best bit in there. NOT.

Deep fried pickles are phenomenal.

I'll need a video of you eating one.

[Coito ergo sum]

I think the deep fried dill pickle part is the best bit in there. NOT.

Deep fried pickles are phenomenal.

I'll need a video of you eating one.

Have you ever tried one?



They are "om nom nom."

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Why the fuck would I try one?

[Coito ergo sum]

Why the fuck would I try one?

Because they are om nom nom?

[Callan]

I would taste a deep-fried dill pickle!

Couldn't guarantee to finish one, but I would certainly taste it!

[Coito ergo sum]

I would taste a deep-fried dill pickle!

Couldn't guarantee to finish one, but I would certainly taste it!

Everyone whose never tried one says that. Then you try one, and you eat the entire basket of them....

[Seth]

He's not suing because eating the fast food made him fat....he's suing because he is fat, and he wants White Castle to have bigger, more comfortable seating so fat people can eat more hamburgers there....

Read more: http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/oversiz ... z1Xl9wReYh

....it's a civil right, doncha know?

Sadly, it probably is, although I don't think the ADA has defined morbid obesity as a "disability" quite yet.

It is if it's caused by a diagnosed physiological disorder.

There's a breakfast/lunch cafe in Boulder that has the world's most uncomfortable seating. It's hard, tight, and uncomfortable and the booths and tables are jammed quite close together. It's quite deliberate. They have a line of people standing outside the door every morning, summer and winter, to get one of the best short-order breakfasts around. They guarantee that you'll get your meal within five minutes of sitting down, but they also expect you to eat it and get the hell out and let someone else eat, and they have no qualms about booting you out of a table if you're simply idling about during their rush periods.

That's the defense that White Castle should use, as if they need one. I think they should just ban him from all their outlets permanently for being a pain in their ass. And they should counter-sue him for damages and costs for filing a frivolous lawsuit.

You don't "counter sue" for a person filing a frivolous lawsuit. If the lawsuit is frivolous, they follow the procedures in Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, assuming it's in federal court which it probably is. No countersuits are filed.

The case most likely isn't frivolous anyway, since to be frivolous the case must be shown to not be well-grounded in the law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification or repeal of existing law. There have been cases since 1993 that have held that morbid obesity can be a disability and if it is a disability, then as a place of public accommodation they have to reasonably accommodate. There are so many arguable points of fact in there that the to claim the case as frivolous, we'd pretty much have to have the guy be a skinny marathon runner claiming to be obese and disabled....

He is being reasonably accommodated. He is able to sit, just not comfortably. The point of my example was to show that it's not unreasonable for an eating establishment to have uncomfortable seating arrangements. "Comfort" at a restaurant is not a civil right. If you don't like the seating arrangements, don't go to the restaurant.

Now, if he were in a wheelchair, they would, of course, have to provide seating that accommodates a wheelchair, but that's different.

And whatever the details of the Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants in a frivolous lawsuit should be allowed to sue the ever-living crap out of the plaintiffs and their lawyers. That would put a stop to frivolous lawsuits like this.

[Coito ergo sum]

He is being reasonably accommodated. He is able to sit, just not comfortably. The point of my example was to show that it's not unreasonable for an eating establishment to have uncomfortable seating arrangements. "Comfort" at a restaurant is not a civil right. If you don't like the seating arrangements, don't go to the restaurant.

Now, if he were in a wheelchair, they would, of course, have to provide seating that accommodates a wheelchair, but that's different.

And whatever the details of the Rules of Civil Procedure, defendants in a frivolous lawsuit should be allowed to sue the ever-living crap out of the plaintiffs and their lawyers. That would put a stop to frivolous lawsuits like this.

Well, the court will decide if he's being reasonably accommodated, and initially if he is entitled to be reasonably accommodated in the first place. I think the case is stupid to begin with, but if he's covered by the ADA, he has a non-frivolous case - even if he's just "arguably" covered by the ADA it's not frivolous.

And, a person can sue someone who sues them. The question is whether that suit will be successful, and that depends on the basis for the suit. For frivolous claims, that's a decision made by the judge in the case where the complaint is filed. But, if someone wants to bring a claim for "abuse of process" or something like that, they are free to. However, the case must be proved.

Just because you bring a case and lose doesn't mean your case was frivolous. So, saying that defendants should be able to sue the fuck out of plaintiffs and their lawyers doesn't tell us anything. What would they have to prove to be successful at such a suit? Is any losing suit subject to damages, or does the suit have to be devoid of even arguable legal merit?