What started as a quick late-night snack turned into a legal and workplace confrontation for one long-time Ford employee.Curt Crum, a 60-year-old former electrician at Ford’s Kentucky truck plant, says his 11-year career with the automaker ended abruptly in May after he was accused of stealing a $1.95 package of Grandma’s chocolate chip cookies from a self-checkout kiosk.
He insists he paid for the snack, and later releases bank records that he says prove it, prompting Ford to offer him $33,000 in back pay and his old job back. Instead of returning, he is now preparing to file a lawsuit.
Diabetic worker, bug booth and small snack
Representative image
Crum, who is diabetic, says the incident began during a night shift when his blood sugar dropped so he went to a kiosk run by Aramark in the factory cafeteria to buy cookies. He scanned the package and used the self-checkout terminal, swiping his debit card to pay.He remembers that the payment screen briefly flashed a red error message the first time he swiped, which made him unsure. When he tried again, the device seemed to be working normally.“I thought it was probably done,” he told reporters. “That was insignificant to me — $1.95. I thought I paid,” he said, according to The Independent.The snack was such a simple purchase that he didn’t think much about it. But about a week later, he says his supervisors called him, accused him of taking the cookies without paying, and told him he would be terminated.
He was then escorted out of the Kentucky truck plant before he had a chance to check the booth records or review what happened.
Bank records show $1.95 was spent
Once home, Crum looked closely at his banking activity. There he says he found a $1.95 debit card transaction that matched the timing and amount of the cookie purchase. He provided a bank statement to Ford and Aramark as proof that the payment had been processed.After reviewing the documents, Ford reversed course.
The company admitted that the cookie had already been paid for and that the firing was an error. According to Crum, Ford offered to reinstate him at the Kentucky truck plant. They paid him approximately $33,000 in back wages to cover the period between his termination and the cancellation. Despite this, Crum says he would not accept the offer to return to Ford.His attorney, J. Will Hopper, says Ford and Aramark had the information needed to avoid the situation in the first place.
“The theft accusations against Mr. Crum were false, and the evidence was available to both Aramark and Ford from the beginning,” Hopper said, according to the report. He noted that their investigations are continuing and that they are exploring “all available allegations, including defamation.”“Neither Aramark nor Ford have published a retraction, and to this day neither has cleared Mr. Crum’s name…The manner in which Aramark and Ford handled this situation was unacceptable, and Mr. Crum did not do so.”
He added that Crum intends to pursue his claims to the fullest extent of the law.
Ford and Aramark say they are reviewing issues with the kiosks
Ford fired an 11-year-old employee over a $1.95 cake, then his bank statement changed everything.
Ford declined to comment directly on Chrome’s potential lawsuit, saying it does not address pending litigation. However, the company acknowledged that concerns had been raised about the self-service kiosks it had introduced in its factories.“We have invested significantly to upgrade our workplaces, including self-service kiosks operated by Aramark to provide 24/7 convenience to our employees… We
“We recognize that there have been some issues raised regarding kiosk functionality in some limited cases, and we are working with Aramark to review these situations,” a Ford spokesperson said.Aramark, which operates the kiosks, offered a similarly cautious response. A company spokesperson said: “We do not comment on potential lawsuits.” “We remain focused on operating with integrity and accountability.”Neither company provided public details about what went wrong with the Chrome deal or how the alleged nonpayment was initially reported, according to the report.
“I’m doing what the union should do.”
On top of his criticism of Ford and Aramark, Crum also expressed frustration with his union, the United Auto Workers (UAW). As a worker representing the UAW, he says he expects firmer support once he is charged.“I’m doing what the union should be doing,” he told the Shifting Gears with Phoebe Wall Howard newsletter, which first reported his allegations. They should stand up, bang on the table and say this is not acceptable.
You don’t treat people that way.”He claimed that Ford should not “automatically fire anyone” over a low-value item without conducting a thorough investigation, and that Aramark should not make allegations “without doing its research.”
Another worker says he lost his job because of firecrackers
Crum’s story isn’t the only one that raises questions about stall discipline at Ford plants. Nick Nabozny, another former Ford employee, said he was fired from a Michigan plant in April after being accused of eating Ritz cookies at a similar self-checkout station.Like Chrome, Nabozny claims that the accusation was false and that he encountered problems with the payment system at the kiosks. The UAW stated that Nabozny’s case is under review.Together, these events spark a broader discussion about: the reliability of self-checkout technology in industrial workplaces. Whether low value transactions are handled appropriately before serious charges such as theft are brought.
How should unions and employers protect workers when there are flawed systems or unclear instructions?For Chrome, the issue is no longer about the cookie itself, but about trust and reputation. After more than a decade at Ford, he says being taken out on a disputed $1.95 purchase, and only cleared after he presented his own evidence, permanently changed his view of his former employer.Thinking about this story, what do you think is the most important solution: stronger safeguards and error checks at kiosks, more thorough investigations before firing employees, or clearer union protocols for defending workers in such situations?
