Latest news with #workplacediscrimination
Daily Mail
3 days ago
- Daily Mail
Banker with fear of dolls sues employer after boss left a Chucky toy on her chair
A former banker with a deep-seated fear of dolls has claimed she has suffered from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ever since her boss left a Chucky toy on her chair. Debra Jones claims in her lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina that her supervisors at Truist subjected her to workplace discrimination and created a hostile work environment - causing her emotional and financial harm. Jones had already been diagnosed with major depressive disorder, general anxiety disorder, autoimmune disorder and vitiligo when she was hired as a full-time relationship banker in April 2024 in Rocky Mount, according to court documents obtained by She claims she suffered discrimination and retaliation at the Charlotte-based bank due to those disabilities, and the Chucky incident caused her to be newly diagnosed with PTSD. Chucky is a fictional character in horror slasher films about a doll possessed by a serial killer. The first film, Child's Play, was released in 1988 and numerous sequels have followed. It all went down in June 2024, during her last week of training, when Jones claims her manager at the time, Matthew Korr, placed 'the doll that kills people' in her chair. She says Korr 'was aware of her fear of dolls and how her fear of dolls negatively affected her disabilities, as Plaintiff had shared this with Korr when he had invited Plaintiff to his home for a team cookout.' When he then saw how Jones reacted, Korr allegedly started to laugh. Immediately after the incident, Jones said she had to be treated by her medical provider - and was placed on eight weeks of medical leave to treat her disabilities. She finally returned to work in August 2024, and was assigned to a new manager, Jennifer Briley, who said she was aware of the Chucky incident and moved Jones to a different office. Yet, Jones said her treatment at the bank became worse as she continued to face mockery, and was subjected to unequal treatment related to her job and her workplace accommodations. 'Plaintiff contends that Plaintiff and her coworkers alike were subjected to making some mistakes, but Plaintiff was treated differently than her coworkers when she made mistakes,' the lawsuit asserts. It also claims Jones had an accommodation to leave work at 3pm three times a week to seek treatment 'for flare-ups that started as a result of the Chucky doll incident.' But Jones said Briley once told her she would have to work until 4pm. Then, after Jones said she discovered a fraudulent check, Briley joked that she was 'always fraudulent vigilant' as supervisors started questioning her need for medical leave and aggressively reprimanded her. By January 29, 2025, the lawsuit says, Tracy Wood - the regional area leader at Truist - told her her accommodation was negatively affecting her coworkers who also needed time off. 'Wood further stated to Plaintiff that Wood did not believe this job was the right fit for Plaintiff and that Plaintiff cannot keep using her anxiety and emotional problems as an excuse,' the federal suit claims. Jones said she suffered several panic attacks in the aftermath, and was ultimately forced out of her job. As a result, Jones says she 'suffered and will continue to suffer emotional pain and suffering, inconvenience, embarrassment [and] mental anguish.' She now argues that Truist bank is liable for the actions of its supervisors and employers - or is at least liable for its negligent supervision, and even though her managers are named in the suit, they are not listed as defendants. Jones is seeking a jury trial with compensatory damages for her emotional pain, backpay and reinstatement.
New York Times
06-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Will White Men Rush to Court After Justices' Latest Ruling? Not Likely.
A Supreme Court ruling on Thursday handed a victory to white Americans and straight people who believe they have been discriminated against in the workplace. But just how widespread are those complaints? President Trump and his allies have argued that discrimination against white Americans and straight people is a workplace scourge that often occurs under the cover of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. His administration has gone to great lengths to undo what it calls 'illegal D.E.I.,' including ousting diversity officials from federal agencies and removing D.E.I. language from government websites. Experts in employment law argue that the reality is more complicated, and say that the Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to drastically change the makeup of those filing and winning workplace discrimination cases. 'It will likely continue to be that a majority of discrimination cases are filed by minority-group members,' said Camille Olson, a partner at the management-side law firm Seyfarth Shaw. 'But I think there will be an increasing number of cases that are filed by individuals who are either male or heterosexual or not a member of a minority race or religion.' Federal government data suggest that members of so-called majority groups have historically brought only a small fraction of discrimination cases. Of the roughly 21,000 charges of race-based employment discrimination filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission in 2021, only slightly more than 10 percent — about 2,350 — involved charges of discrimination against white people. Ms. Olson said that such figures almost certainly understated the number of cases of discrimination against white people in the workplace, partly because the law in many parts of the country created an obstacle to litigating these cases. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
CNA
05-06-2025
- Business
- CNA
US Supreme Court eases path for 'reverse' discrimination claims in workplace cases
WASHINGTON: The US Supreme Court on Thursday (Jun 5) made it easier for people from majority backgrounds, such as white or heterosexual individuals, to pursue workplace discrimination claims, in a unanimous ruling that revived an Ohio woman's lawsuit. The case involves Marlean Ames, who claimed she was illegally denied a promotion and demoted because she is heterosexual. The justices ruled 9-0 to overturn a lower court's decision that had dismissed her complaint, marking a significant shift in how courts may evaluate so-called 'reverse discrimination' suits. RULING REMOVES EXTRA BURDEN ON MAJORITY-GROUP PLAINTIFFS Writing for the court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not allow for different legal standards based on whether someone belongs to a majority or minority group. "By establishing the same protections for every 'individual' – without regard to that individual's membership in a minority or majority group – Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone," Jackson wrote. The ruling affects judicial districts, including the 6th US Circuit Court of Appeals, that previously required plaintiffs from majority groups to provide additional evidence of discrimination. These courts often asked such plaintiffs to demonstrate 'background circumstances' suggesting bias against the majority. CASE BACKGROUND: CLAIMS OF BIAS BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION Ames filed the lawsuit in 2020 against Ohio's Department of Youth Services, saying that she was passed over for a promotion in favour of a gay woman and later demoted in favour of a gay man. She claimed she was more qualified and had been targeted because of her heterosexuality. "I was straight and pushed aside for them," Ames told Reuters in February. Her case had been rejected by the 6th Circuit, which found she had not met the threshold needed to show possible bias under the previous legal standard. The appeals court also noted that the final employment decisions had been made by straight supervisors. The Supreme Court's ruling returns the case to lower courts for further proceedings. POLITICAL AND LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The decision comes amid growing political attention on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policies in the US workplace. On his first day back in office in January, President Donald Trump ordered the dismantling of DEI programs across federal agencies, calling them divisive. He also urged private companies to follow suit. Conservative legal groups such as America First Legal, which has filed numerous lawsuits alleging anti-white or anti-male bias, had backed Ames' case. Her attorney, Edward Gilbert, said they were 'overjoyed' by the court's decision. 'We look forward to fully pressing those arguments as the case moves forward because the Ohio Department of Youth Services did not engage in unlawful discrimination,' said department spokesperson Dominic Binkley. PUSHBACK FROM CIVIL RIGHTS ORGANISATIONS The ruling has drawn criticism from civil rights groups. The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and other advocacy organisations argued the decision risks undermining protections for historically marginalised groups. In filings to the court, they said the 'background circumstances' test allowed judges to consider the broader context of systemic discrimination against groups like Black and LGBTQ individuals. They warned that eliminating such standards may shift focus away from ongoing inequality. While the Supreme Court ruling does not eliminate Title VII's protections against discrimination, it does mean that all individuals, regardless of background, will face the same evidentiary requirements when bringing a claim. The case could pave the way for an increase in workplace lawsuits challenging diversity hiring and promotion practices across both public institutions and private employers.
Daily Mail
05-06-2025
- Business
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Landmark Supreme Court ruling sides with Marlean Ames, a straight woman who was 'passed over' for jobs for gay colleagues
The Supreme Court has sided with a straight woman who alleged that she was passed over for positions that went to her gay colleagues. Marlean Ames said she was the victim of bias in an agency overseeing Ohio 's youth correctional facilities, with her case being decided in a rare unanimous ruling as all justices agreed. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who wrote the opinion for the court, agreed that a ruling used in almost half the nation's federal circuits that forced people who are not white, male or gay to meet a higher bar to prove workplace discrimination. Brown wrote that it was unconstitutional for courts to have different standards for different groups, and said ' Congress left no room for courts to impose special requirements on majority-group plaintiffs alone.'
BBC News
29-05-2025
- General
- BBC News
Rise in help offered for discrimination at work in Guernsey
Requests for help dealing with workplace discrimination have trebled in the last year, according to a charity offering advice and support to people in Advice Guernsey's latest report to the States showed the number of people asking for help had risen to 116 in 2024, up from 36, in preventing discrimination on the grounds of disability, carer status, race, religion or belief, and sexual orientation came into force in September Ashmead, the charity's deputy chief executive, told BBC Radio Guernsey the legislation prompted people to come forward. Ms Ashmead said: "It's because now there are protections in place so people have legislation that can protect them."Obviously, it is always hoped that once the issue has been highlighted that, through negotiation with their employer, the problem can be resolved without it necessarily needing to go further down the line."The report also noted cases of discrimination outside of the workplace had risen from 36 to 73 in the last the island's population of more than 25,000, the charity said it was contacted by just under 3,000 people in 2024 who were looking for advice on things such as housing, finances and employment. Ms Ashmead said some of their clients "are working members of society who are struggling and are facing having to go to food banks and facing debt so these things do need to be addressed".She said housing was one of the main issues people contacted them about, "particularly the lack of access to affordable housing and the increasing rents". "People may not be able to afford the new rent and there is nowhere else for them to go, so it can be a real real problem," she said. 'Increasingly complex problems' The charity said its report provided an "interesting barometer" of the social issues concerning data also highlighted a further decline in the number of people using its service for debt and money problems, falling from 1,168 to 833 in the same Ashmead said: "The problem is still there but we have had fewer inquiries about it."Even if the statistics themselves may appear quite small compared to the number of people in Guernsey... they are still people and they are part of our community and we need to make sure that everyone is looked after well."Ms Ashmead said the charity was now spending an average of around 10 to 15 minutes more with each client due to their "increasingly complex problems".
