Skip to content

Print   Email  Share

Faces of EEOC

"I stood up for my rights. I am glad I was able to show there are many ways to be screened for a job. Everyone has a right to a reasonable accommodation so they can have the opportunity to work."

Lorenzo Cook,
EEOC v. Kmart

 

Lorenzo was more than qualified to do the job. The easy part would be taking the pre-employment drug test. Happy to have been offered a position at the Kmart in Hyattsville, Md., Lorenzo let the hiring manager know he was unable to provide a urine sample because his kidney disease requires him to undergo dialysis treatment. He asked Kmart to allow him to take another type of pre-employment screening, such as a blood test or hair test. Kmart refused to accommodate Lorenzo's request.

Lorenzo filed a charge of discrimination with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After investigating his charge and failing to reach a voluntary resolution with the employer, EEOC filed suit against Kmart alleging that the company had violated the Americans with Disabilities Act. Kmart settled the suit, agreeing to pay damages, cover back-pay, and make changes to its pre-employment screening policies.