A diabetic Ford worker was fired for allegedly stealing a $1.95 cookie — he'd actually paid. Then he got $28,000 in lost wages

Unfortunately, his career came to a swift end after he was called into a supervisor’s office and told security camera footage had caught him “stealing” a chocolate chip cookie. He was escorted out and even prevented from taking his tools, thanks to Ford’s “zero-tolerance” policy.

The only problem was that he had proof he’d paid. Despite that evidence, Ford continued to give him the runaround, which has ultimately led to the company getting a lot of bad PR, footing a bill for up to $33,000 in lost wages (only $28,000 confirmed), and trying and failing to hire Kromm back.

Half-baked accusation

The cookie transaction happened at 3:30 AM when Kromm, a diabetic, swiped his card to buy a cookie as he was lightheaded. The video showed the first payment wasn’t processed, so Kromm moved to another machine. But the footage only showed the non-payment, so Kromm was fired. He wasn’t the first, as others had been fired in a similar incident over a small snack.

Kromm said that a representative for the United Auto Workers union urged him to apologize, but he refused because he hadn’t stolen. Instead, he showed the company his debit card history. But it took two weeks to get a response, and the company said the statements had to be notarized. Understandably, this left Kromm very upset.

“I’m thinking, this is the way my career at Ford Motor is going to end? There’s no way I’m coming back. First, you tell me I’m a thief, and then you tell me I’m a liar for saying I didn’t steal. They were so confident I’d stolen. And then I look in my checking account statement and the $1.95 is frickin’ there,” he told Shifting Gears on Substack.

Ultimately, after the kiosk operator confirmed Kromm had paid, he was invited back, but opted out as he’d already found a higher-paying job. Now, some are urging Kromm to sue, while Ford told Shifting Gears, “There are times when we look into things and realize it could have been handled differently.” (MoneyWise reached out to Ford for comment, but received no reply.)

What are your rights if your employer accuses you of theft?

Kromm landed on his feet, but not everyone will be so lucky. And unfortunately, if an employer accuses you of theft, there may not be much you can do.

“Most employment in the United States is ‘at-will,’” Aaron Hall, an attorney for business owners, told Moneywise. “At-will means an employer can let someone go for almost any reason, or no reason at all, including a reason that turns out to be mistaken or unfair.”

Hall explained that a worker can’t usually sue for being fired over a false accusation unless an exception to at-will employment applies, like defamation, discrimination, retaliation or breach of contract. However, in this type of situation, it’s important to determine if it was really about the cookie.

“This is the type of case where it can turn out the employee is really being terminated for another reason, but they used the stolen cookie as an excuse,” Jillian Fairchild, an employment law attorney and founder of Fairchild Employment Law, told Moneywise. “For example, he could have the right to sue if he was really being terminated due to his age or his diabetes, which has the potential to qualify as a disability.”

Fairchild also said that if Kromm could prove Ford made a damaging statement about the theft to others outside the company, he could have a defamation claim “if this ruined his reputation or caused him to lose job opportunities.”

Of course, even if Kromm did sue, there are other factors that could affect his claim.

“The case’s value is complex given the alleged damages,” Steven Shanker, litigation & corporate partner at Romano Law, told Moneywise. “In this case, the employee quickly accepted another position at higher hourly pay plus a bonus, which mitigates or eliminates lost‑wage damages.”

Shanker explained that “any recovery might focus on short‑term wage loss, loss of seniority or benefits, reputational harm and emotional distress rather than long‑term earnings,” and said the fact that Ford offered back pay could affect the damage analysis.