A North Carolina woman is suing Truist Bank after her manager allegedly placed a Chucky doll on her chair, triggering a panic attack that led to PTSD, eight weeks of medical leave, and ultimately her termination.
Key Takeaways
- Debra Jones filed a lawsuit against Truist Bank claiming disability discrimination and harassment after her manager allegedly placed a “Chucky” doll on her chair despite knowing about her phobia of dolls
- The incident reportedly triggered a severe panic attack, leading to an eight-week medical leave and a new diagnosis of PTSD on top of Jones’ existing conditions including depression, anxiety, and autoimmune disorders
- Upon returning to work, Jones claims she was subjected to different treatment regarding accommodations, with supervisors suggesting her anxiety was “an excuse” and that the job wasn’t “a right fit for her”
- The lawsuit, filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act and Civil Rights Act, seeks backpay, legal fees, and damages for emotional distress through a jury trial
Manager’s Prank Sparks Legal Battle
“Debra Jones, a former employee at Truist Bank in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, has filed a lawsuit alleging her manager deliberately placed a “Chucky” doll from the horror movie “Child’s Play” on her office chair despite knowing about her severe fear of dolls,” according to court documents, the manager allegedly laughed at Jones’ extreme reaction to finding the doll. The incident, which reportedly occurred in 2024, triggered a severe panic attack that forced Jones to take an eight-week medical leave and resulted in a new diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder.
The lawsuit claims Jones had previously informed her employer about her mental health conditions, including depression and anxiety, as well as her specific phobia of dolls. Her medical conditions also included autoimmune issues that affected her skin pigmentation, which reportedly led to jokes at her expense in the workplace. The incident with the Chucky doll appears to have exacerbated her pre-existing conditions substantially, leading to the extended medical absence and additional diagnosis.
Workplace Treatment Upon Return
When Jones returned to work following her medical leave, the situation allegedly worsened. According to her lawsuit, she was assigned a new manager and office but experienced what she describes as discrimination related to her disabilities and accommodations. Court documents state that supervisors complained that her accommodations for medical leave were negatively affecting her coworkers, with one supervisor reportedly telling her they “also needed time off.”
“cannot keep using her anxiety and emotional problems as an excuse,” stated a supervisor.
By January 2025, the situation had deteriorated further. Jones claims a supervisor suggested the position at Truist Bank was not appropriate for her, specifically citing her anxiety as the reason. This judgment about her fitness for the role, based on her disability, forms a key part of her legal complaint. Following continued difficulties, Jones experienced additional panic attacks that required further medical treatment, ultimately leading to her termination in March 2025.
Legal Claims and Damages Sought
Jones’ lawsuit alleges multiple violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act. The legal action contends that Truist Bank failed to provide reasonable accommodations for her disabilities and instead subjected her to harassment and discrimination based on those protected conditions. The bank reportedly justified her termination by citing performance concerns, while simultaneously criticizing her for what they characterized as using anxiety as an excuse.
“did not think this job was a right fit for her,” stated a supervisor.
The lawsuit seeks significant remedies, including backpay, legal fees, and damages for emotional distress. Jones has specifically requested a jury trial to resolve the matter. The case highlights the ongoing challenges in workplace accommodations for mental health conditions and the potential consequences when employers fail to address known vulnerabilities of their employees. WRAL News has contacted both Truist Bank and Jones’ attorney for comments, but responses were not immediately available.
Broader Implications
This case raises important questions about reasonable accommodations in the workplace and the responsibility of employers to maintain an environment free from harassment based on known disabilities. The outcome will likely hinge on whether Jones can substantiate her claims about prior disclosure of her conditions and phobia, as well as the bank’s subsequent handling of accommodations after the incident. At its core, the case examines where the line exists between workplace pranks and disability-based harassment.
President Trump’s administration has consistently emphasized the importance of protecting American workers while also addressing regulatory burdens on businesses. This case represents the complex balance between ensuring workplace protections for individuals with disabilities and preventing potentially frivolous claims that could burden employers. As the legal process unfolds, it will provide further clarity on how these competing interests should be balanced under current disability law.
