Thank you for using JustAnswer.
I'm sorry to hear about your situation. First of all, you need to know that Kansas is an "at will" employment state. At-will employment means that without a contract, you have no contractual or other right to employment with the company. The company is entitled to fire you for any reason: a good reason, a poor reason, or no reason at all--as long as the company does not fire you for an illegal reason (race, gender, age, religion, etc...). But it extends beyond firing, to hiring, promotions, demotions, wage cuts and raises, disciplinary actions, and even scheduling. Unless you can show that this was done in violation of a contract, union agreement, or a clear violation of an unambiguous and binding clause against the employer, or that it was done because of some minority status (age, race, gender, religion, disability) that you have, then they do have this discretion. So they do have the right to suspend, terminate, etc...
Next, an employer can make you pay for a product loss by negligence or otherwise entrusted to your care. It sucks when they do this, because most employers take this as a cost of doing business rather than passing on the costs to employees, but it's always possible that they may do so legally. They can't withhold it from your check without your permission, but if you give permission they can deduct it, in installments (as you may agree with them).
It's also not extortion / coercion / etc... Extortion (aka blackmail) is where someone obtains money or something of value through violence or threats, yes, but the caveat is that it's money that they don't otherwise have any right to pursue. For example, if I have a sex tape that shows a high profile individual, and tell that person that I won't release it if they pay me $100,000, then that would be extortion, as I don't have any right to that money otherwise. Now if a drunk driver hits my car, causes $10,000 in damage, and I say that I won't report the accident if he pays me the $10,000 damage caused, that's not extortion because I have a right to pursue that $10,000. It's a settlement in that incident. But if I say that he has to give me $50,000, then $40,000 would be an extortion amount, where $10,000 would be a valid settlement amount. Does that make sense?
Coercion is related, as it's the act of persuading someone through force or threats. But the distinction here is that the force/threats make you do something that you otherwise would not do. Again, where someone is saying something and has a valid legal complaint, the "threat" to do something that they legally can do otherwise is not coercion. So if I say "give me the $10,000 damages or I'll sue", while that's a threat, it's not coercion because I'd have a right to that money. Now if I say "give me $10,000 or I'll punch you in the face" then that IS coercion, because I don't have a right to punch that person in the face.
In short, this is all legal, as they do have the right to seek repayment from you, and because they do, any threats are not threats in the sense of extortion / coercion.
I know this is probably not what you wanted to hear, but it is the law. I hope that clears things up anyway. If you have any other questions, please let me know. If not, and you have not yet, please rate my answer AND press the "submit" button, if applicable.
Please note that I don't get any credit for the time and effort that I spent on this answer unless and until you rate it positively (3 or more stars). Look for the stars on your screen (★★★★★). You may need to scroll left/right/up/down to see these stars, but note that the rating is what closes out this question, so it is necessary that you do so.
Thank you, ***** ***** luck to you!