Kmart Corporation, a leading national retailer, will pay $102,048 and provide significant equitable relief to settle a federal disability discrimination lawsuit.

According to the lawsuit, after Kmart offered Lorenzo Cook a job at its Hyattsville, Md., store, Cook advised the hiring manager that he could not provide a urine sample for the company's manda­tory pre-employment drug screening due to his kidney disease and dialysis. Cook requested a reason­able accommodation such as a blood test, hair test, or other drug test that did not require a urine sample, the EEOC charged.   Kmart refused to provide that alternative test and denied Cook employ­ment because of his disability, according to the suit.

Such alleged conduct violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which requires employers to provide reasonable accommodation, including during the application and hiring process, unless it can show it would be an undue hardship. The ADA also prohibits employers from refusing to hire individuals because of their disability.

In addition to providing $102,048 in monetary relief to Cook, the two-year consent decree resolving this lawsuit provides substantial equitable relief, including enjoining Kmart from taking adverse employment actions on the basis of disability and failing to provide a reasonable accommo­dation. Kmart is also revising its drug testing policies and forms to specify the availability of reason­able accommodation for applicants or employees in the company's drug testing processes. The decree also requires Kmart to provide training on the equal employment opportunity laws enforced by the EEOC, and on Kmart's ADA policy and the provision of reasonable accommodation, including as it relates to the company's drug testing processes. This training is required for all store managers, store assistant managers and human resources leads in the district where the alleged discrimination occurred. Kmart will also post a notice regarding the resolution of this lawsuit.

"There was a readily available alternative to the urinalysis test in this situation," said the EEOC Director. "This case demonstrates that the consequences of failing to comply with the ADA can be far more expensive than the actual cost of providing a reason­able accommodation."