A Ford electrician, Kurt Kromm, who was dismissed over allegations that he stole a $1.95 packet of cookies is preparing to take legal action against the automaker and its cafeteria operator, Aramark.
The 60-year-old man worked for 11 years repairing robots and automated equipment at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville, Kentucky.
According to him, he was wrongly accused of theft after a self-checkout kiosk appeared to indicate that he had not paid for a two-pack of Grandma’s Chocolate Chip Cookies during an overnight shift in May.
Ford later reinstated Kromm, paid him about $33,000 in back wages and offered him his job back after he provided bank records showing the $1.95 payment had been processed.
However, Kromm declined the offer, saying the company dismissed him before giving him an opportunity to prove he had paid.
“I can’t come back to a company that just fired me like this and not give me any chance to show I paid.”
Kromm has now hired Kentucky attorney J. Will Huber, who plans to send a demand letter to Ford and Aramark this week.
“The accusations of theft made against him were absolutely false,” Huber said in a statement provided to The Post.
“The proof of his innocence was available to or in the possession of both Aramark and Ford from the very start.”
Huber added that Kromm “paid, but he was nevertheless labeled a thief and removed from the plant he devoted 11 years of his career to,” calling the companies’ handling of the incident “unacceptable” and saying the facts “give rise to substantial legal claims” that Kromm intends to pursue “to the fullest extent of the law.”
The hiring of Huber was first reported by the Shifting Gears newsletter.
Responding to the development, a Ford spokesperson told The Post, “We don’t comment on the specifics of pending litigation.
“We are working to review the limited instances where Aramark kiosk issues have been raised.”
An Aramark spokesperson also declined to discuss the case.
“We do not comment on potential litigation.
“We remain focused on operating with integrity and accountability.”
According to Kromm, who is diabetic, his blood sugar level dropped to 60 at about 3:30 a.m. on May 9, prompting him to buy the cookies from an Aramark self-checkout kiosk inside the factory.
He said the payment terminal displayed a red error message after he swiped his debit card. He tried again, and although the screen did not show the usual approval message, it also did not reject the transaction.
“I figured, well, it probably went through,” Kromm said. “This was so inconsequential to me — $1.95. I figured I paid.”
About a week later, supervisors informed him that he was being dismissed for allegedly taking the cookies without paying.
“The bargainer says, ‘This is bad,’” Kromm recalled. “I said, ‘For what?’ They said, ‘They want to terminate you for taking a cookie.’ I was like, ‘What are you talking about?’”
Kromm said he was escorted out of the plant immediately and was not allowed to collect his belongings.
A few days later, he asked a former colleague to photograph the kiosk, confirming the cookie price. He then found the matching $1.95 debit on his bank statement and sent screenshots to Ford and union officials.
The company later requested a notarised bank statement before reinstating him with full back pay.
Although Ford restored his job and compensated him for lost wages, Kromm said he chose not to return because he felt the company had failed to acknowledge its mistake.
“There was no apology. There was no serious, ‘We’re sorry,’” he told The Post. “I expected to work for Ford until I retired. … This was tremendously difficult for me, but I couldn’t go back.”
Legal experts remain divided over the case.
New York civil litigation attorney Imran Ansari said Kromm “may certainly have successful claims against Ford for wrongful termination” and argued the strongest aspect of the case may be a defamation claim because a false accusation of theft can cause lasting reputational harm.
Ansari added Aramark could also face liability if it was responsible for the incorrect allegation.
However, Chicago trial lawyer Andrew Stoltmann questioned the strength of the case.
“I think that’s going to be a pretty weak case. I won’t say frivolous, but it is at least nearing that level,” Stoltmann told The Post.
“He might be able to get a technical win, but I don’t think there’s going to be a jackpot of money for him at the end of the rainbow.”
Stoltmann said Ford’s decision to reinstate Kromm and pay his lost wages could limit the damages available in a wrongful termination lawsuit, even if he argues that the theft allegation affected his reputation.
