A former Truist Bank employee is seeking justice after her manager deliberately placed a horror movie “Chucky” doll on her chair despite knowing about her phobia, triggering a mental health breakdown that ultimately led to her termination.
Key Takeaways
- Debra Jones from Charlotte is suing Truist Bank under the Americans with Disabilities Act after a manager’s Chucky doll prank triggered severe anxiety and PTSD
- Jones claims her manager was fully aware of her doll phobia and pre-existing mental health conditions before placing the doll on her chair
- Following an eight-week medical leave, Jones alleges she faced workplace discrimination regarding her accommodations before eventually being terminated
- The lawsuit seeks backpay, damages for emotional distress, and legal fees, highlighting the bank’s failure to provide reasonable accommodations for her disabilities
Deliberate Torment Using Known Phobia
Debra Jones’ lawsuit against Truist Bank centers on a deeply troubling workplace incident where her manager deliberately placed a “Chucky” doll from the horror film “Child’s Play” on her chair. According to court documents, the manager was fully aware of Jones’ extreme fear of dolls and her diagnosed conditions including anxiety, depression, and various autoimmune diseases. When Jones discovered the doll, she suffered an immediate anxiety attack, while her manager allegedly stood by laughing at her reaction rather than offering assistance.
This calculated act against a vulnerable employee with known mental health conditions represents a disturbing abuse of power within what should be a professional corporate environment. The incident forced Jones into an eight-week medical leave and resulted in a new PTSD diagnosis, compounding her existing health challenges. The case raises serious questions about workplace culture at Truist and management’s willingness to exploit personal vulnerabilities for amusement.
Further Discrimination Upon Return
Jones’ nightmare didn’t end with the initial incident. Upon returning to work after medical leave, she was assigned a new manager and office location, but claims the discrimination continued in more subtle forms. Her lawsuit alleges that management began treating her differently regarding her work accommodations, which were medically necessary. In a particularly telling moment, supervisors complained that her accommodations were creating problems for other employees.
“Also needed time off,” supervisors at Truist Bank complained about Jones’ medically-necessary accommodations, according to court documents.
By January 2025, the situation had deteriorated further. A supervisor explicitly suggested Jones was unsuitable for her position, using her health conditions as justification. The lawsuit details how Jones was subjected to comments about her appearance related to her autoimmune condition, which affects her skin pigmentation. These ongoing hostile behaviors demonstrate a workplace environment utterly failing to provide the reasonable accommodations required by law for disabled employees.
Termination and Legal Action
The culmination of this workplace harassment came when Jones was terminated in March, with management citing “performance concerns” as the reason. According to the lawsuit, a supervisor claimed Jones “cannot keep using her anxiety and emotional problems as an excuse” for her workplace needs. This statement reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of disability accommodation laws and reinforces the discriminatory attitudes Jones allegedly faced throughout her employment.
“Cannot keep using her anxiety and emotional problems as an excuse,” a supervisor at Truist Bank stated, revealing a blatant disregard for Jones’ documented medical conditions.
Jones’ lawsuit cites violations of both the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Civil Rights Act, seeking appropriate compensation for the damages she suffered. Her legal team has requested a jury trial to determine the outcome. This case represents yet another example of corporate America’s failure to protect vulnerable workers when management decides their disabilities are inconvenient rather than conditions requiring legally-mandated accommodation. The outcome will establish important precedent for other workers facing similar discrimination.
