A Ford electrician who was fired over false allegations that he stole a $1.95 cookie is preparing to take legal action against the automaker and its cafeteria operator Aramark, The Post has learned.
Kurt Kromm, 60, who spent 11 years repairing robots and automated equipment at Ford’s Kentucky Truck Plant in Louisville, Ky., says he was wrongly branded a thief after a self-checkout kiosk appeared to show he failed to pay for a two-pack of Grandma’s Chocolate Chip Cookies during an overnight shift in May.
Ford ultimately reinstated Kromm, paid him roughly $33,000 in back wages and offered him his job back after he produced bank records showing the $1.95 transaction had gone through.
But Kromm rejected the offer, telling The Post earlier this month: “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 retained 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.”
News of Huber’s hiring was first reported by the Shifting Gears newsletter.
“We don’t comment on the specifics of pending litigation,” a Ford spokesperson told The Post.
“We are working to review the limited instances where Aramark kiosk issues have been raised.”
“We do not comment on potential litigation,” an Aramark spokesperson told The Post.
“We remain focused on operating with integrity and accountability.”
The bizarre saga was first reported by journalist Phoebe Wall Howard’s Substack newsletter Shifting Gears.
Kromm, who is diabetic, told The Post his blood sugar had dropped to 60 around 3:30 a.m. on May 9, prompting him to buy the cookies at an Aramark self-checkout kiosk inside the factory.
He said the payment terminal flashed a red error message after he swiped his debit card. He swiped again, but while the screen never displayed the usual green approval checkmark, it also didn’t reject the transaction.
“I figured, well, it probably went through,” Kromm said. “This was so inconsequential to me — $1.95. I figured I paid.”
A week later, supervisors summoned him to a labor office and informed him he was being fired for allegedly stealing the cookies.
“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 immediately escorted from the plant and not allowed to retrieve his belongings.
Days later, after asking a former co-worker to photograph the kiosk showing the cookie’s correct price, Kromm found the matching $1.95 charge on his bank statement and sent screenshots to Ford and union officials.
The company later demanded a notarized bank statement before reinstating him with full back pay.
Despite being made whole financially, Kromm said he couldn’t return.
“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 who spoke to The Post were divided over Kromm’s prospects.
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 erroneous allegation that Kromm failed to pay.
But Chicago trial lawyer Andrew Stoltmann was more skeptical.
“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 Kromm faces an uphill battle because Ford reinstated him and made him financially whole, limiting the damages that typically drive wrongful-termination lawsuits.
While Kromm may be able to argue that the theft accusation harmed his reputation, Stoltmann said the company’s decision to offer him his job back likely mitigates much of that damage.
The Post has sought comment from Kromm and the United Auto Workers.
