Engelmeier & Umanah | A Professional Association

Minneapolis : 612-455-7720
St. Cloud : 320-230-0375

Employment Law

Employer and Employee Representation

Estate Planning & Probate

Wills, Trusts, Conservatorship, Guardianship, Estate Administration, Mediation, Litigation


Employment Law Disputes
Estate Planning and Probate Matters
Business and Corporate Law Disputes

Early Childhood Education & School Law

Compliance With Licensing Regulations, Investigations, Complaints, Counseling and Training

Individual Specialty Claims

High Impact Litigation, False Claims Act, Class Actions, Whistleblower, Personal Injury, Tax Disputes And More

Business & Corporate Law

Business Formation, Commercial Disputes, Litigation, Mediation, Tax Dispute Resolution

Exceptional service focused on you


Kmart pays over $100,000 to settle discrimination lawsuit over inflexible drug testing policy

The Americans with Disabilities Act is all about reasonable, flexible standards that have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. If an accommodation is “reasonable” under the law, and it doesn’t inflict an undue burden on the employer, the employer has to provide it.

Kmart learned that lesson the hard way when they paid $100,000 to settle an ADA lawsuit over a drug testing policy that all new employees were required to take. According to the complaint, after Kmart offered Lorenzo Cook a job as a customer service associate in a Maryland store, it directed him to take a standard urinalysis drug test as required by company policy. Cook, who suffers from end stage renal disease, advised Kmart that his condition made it impossible for him to produce urine. Even though Cook was willing to take the test by any other means (such as a blood or hair test) the company insisted that there was no alternative to the urinalysis test and rescinded its offer of employment.

The E.E.O.C. brought suit alleging that Kmart’s refusal to provide an alternative drug test amounted to illegal discrimination. The Americans with Disabilities Act requires covered employers to provide disabled employees – and, in some cases, prospective employees – with a “reasonable accommodation” for their disabilities. The E.E.O.C. argued that Kmart failed to provide Cook a reasonable accommodation by insisting on the urine test.

Kmart and the E.E.O.C. reached a settlement in which Kmart has agreed to pay Cook $100,000 in non-economic relief, plus $2,048 in lost wages. Kmart has also agreed to a two-year consent decree, the terms of which require it to revise its policy, provide training to managers and orders Kmart not to take adverse against its workers on the basis of disability. Under the terms of the settlement Kmart continues to deny that it violated the ADA.

Photo of the legal professionals at Engelmeier & Umanah PA

Engelmeier & Umanah Recent News

Photo of the legal professionals at Engelmeier & Umanah PA

Engelmeier & Umanah Recent News