Just weeks after it was reported that Starbucks settled an Americans with Disabilities Act claim with a “vertically challenged” former employee, now a fast food chain is faced with a lawsuit by someone who is horizontally challenged.

Martin Kessman, a 6-foot, 290-pound New York man, claims that he experienced “pain and embarrassment” at a White Castle fast food restaurant in Nanuet, New York, when he couldn’t fit into a booth while eating with friends. The lawsuit was filed recently in a federal court in Manhattan under the Americans with Disabilities Act. It claims the restaurant failed to make seating modifications to accommodate all of its patrons.

Kessman claims he has brought up the booth size issue with the company before and was told the restaurant in his market would be remodeled with larger tables. He was also sent a list of locations within the White Castle system that include larger seating options, as well as a coupon for free food. In a letter from White Castle, included in the lawsuit, the company said its remodeling project would increase the space between the booth and table by 6 inches. White Castle also claims it is adding tables with free-standing chairs.

Many attorneys and business owners were concerned that the new ADA regulations so broadly stretched the definition of “disability” that almost anyone could claim that he or she was disabled. Is a federal court ready to accept that being overweight amounts to a disability? Maybe, maybe not. But, with the way things are headed, almost any ailment or problem could be classified into a “disability” by an attorney willing to file the complaint. With this area of the law continuing to see a rise in lawsuits, businesses must be prepared to face difficult situations and ask difficult questions… such as, “Do you want fries with that?”

This column is published for informational purposes only. It should not be construed as legal advice and is not intended to create an attorney client relationship. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s law firm or its individual partners.