LOL. Anybody have more details on this? Like what department it was or what manager?
15 replies (most recent on top)
@5bx+1jy070hv8 - Looks like former manager no longer with Truist. Presumably fired. New manager must be worried about keeping her job. Especially since named in lawsuit that she said plaintiff was always “fraudulently vigilant”.
How incompetent is Truist general counsel to reference North Carolina law in defending the lawsuit. ADA is federal law and under purview of EEOC and federal courts. Hope plaintiff gets a nice sized settlement $$$$$. I just updated my disability classification in Workday. Got an axe 🪓 to grind with Truist. If ever fired or laid off, will sue as i have disability that impacts my work. Perhaps will get nice sized settlement 💰as well.
Majority of these articles have a typo with the manager’s last name….. this one has the correct last name of the manager - https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/local/ex-truist-employee-sues-bank-claims-boss-put-horror-movie-doll-in-her-office-chair/article_a08eb46c-0e8d-4f20-86df-f33d41b37ebc.html
@189 Good to know the hall monitors are afoot.
@ke+1jy070hv8 - If someone is d-mb enough to comment on pending litigation against Truist on social media, then they probably shouldn’t work here
Listen… I have to bring my chucky doll to work as it is my support stuffed animal. I need it whenever I take off my mask after driving my car solo. What happens now when people can’t come to work due to fear from a movie and fear of not having an emotional support blanket. Or fear of someone else’s emotional support blanket or doll.
Culture is important. This one is toxic. We are here to serve clients and their families with one the most important aspects of their life. Finances! The ability to support their families. The scam time is over. Merger and or asset acquisition is on the way. Let the rats go before that is the only thing left on the ship.
A shame. She was good goon fuel
This was posted on a public group Facebook page not related to Truist but I saw a lot of Truist employees commenting on it. Hope it doesn’t come back and bite them because I thought we were supposed to keep our comments to ourselves when it comes to legal matters.
Truist should try to start being a bank or change their name to Barnum and Bill. Id buy that shirt.
@cv+1jy070hv8 - Eh. This lady is just an opportunist doing everything she can to get free and easy money. Her claims are baseless with no real merit. Most likely the judge will toss her suit out
@cc+1jy070hv8 - Thanks for sharing. So she tried to sue WF for a separate cockamamie claim. No wonder she wants her old job with Truist back. No one in their right mind would hire this lunatic
Same person as above
JONES v. WELLS FARGO BANK NA (2018)
Court of Appeals of North Carolina.
Debra JONES, Employee, Plaintiff v. WELLS FARGO BANK, NA, Employer, and Old Republic Insurance Company, Carrier, Defendants
No. COA18-245
Decided: November 06, 2018
Perry & Associates, Rocky Mount, by Cedric R. Perry, for plaintiff-appellant. McAngus Goudelock & Courie, PLLC, by H. George Kurani, Charlotte and Veronica S. Fleury, Asheville, for defendant-appellees.
Debra Jones (“plaintiff”) appeals from the North Carolina Industrial Commission's order denying her motion to set aside pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rule 60(b). After careful review, we affirm.
- Background
In February of 2015, plaintiff filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits alleging that she suffered depression and bipolar disorder arising from her employment as a Personal Banker II with Wells Fargo Bank, NA (“Wells Fargo”). Wells Fargo and its insurance carrier, Old Republic Insurance Company (collectively, “defendants”), determined that the claim was not compensable and denied plaintiff's claim. On 27 April 2015, plaintiff filed a Form 33 Request That Claim Be Assigned For Hearing with the North Carolina Industrial Commission. Following a hearing, on 31 May 2016, Deputy Commissioner Thomas Perlungher issued an Opinion and Award denying plaintiff's workers’ compensation claim.
Plaintiff did not appeal to the Full Commission. However, on 8 December 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to set aside the Opinion and Award due to newly discovered evidence, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 1A-1, Rules 60(b)(2) and (6). Plaintiff alleged that she was disabled as a result of defendants’ “sub-human” employment practices, evidence of which “only came to light in September 2016, much too late for a new trial ․”
On 1 February 2017, Deputy Commissioner Perlungher entered an order denying plaintiff's motion. Plaintiff appealed to the Full Commission. Following a hearing, on 9 November 2017, the Full Commission entered an order denying plaintiff's motion to set aside the Opinion and Award.
Plaintiff appeals.
- Discussion
The Industrial Commission's inherent power “to set aside former judgments is analogous to that conferred upon the courts by N.C.R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) and the remedy the Commission may provide is related to that traditionally available at common law and equity and codified by Rule 60(b).” Jenkins v. Piedmont Aviation Servs., 147 N.C. App. 419, 424, 557 S.E.2d 104, 107-08 (2001). “[A] motion for relief under Rule 60(b) is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and appellate review is limited to determining whether the court abused its discretion.” Sink v. Easter, 288 N.C. 183, 198, 217 S.E.2d 532, 541 (1975).
Here, plaintiff fails to show that the Commission abused its discretion by denying her Rule 60(b) motion. The majority of plaintiff's arguments on appeal concern the denial of her workers’ compensation claim. However, those arguments are not properly before this Court.
For example, plaintiff asserts that the Full Commission erred by concluding as a matter of law that no medical expert testified that plaintiff's conditions were causally related to, or exacerbated by, her employment with Wells Fargo, nor opined that plaintiff was at an increased risk of developing a mental illness as compared to members of the general public. However, those conclusions were not made by the Full Commission, but rather by the Deputy Commissioner in the 31 May 2016 Opinion and Award.
Moreover, in improperly attacking the evidence supporting the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award, plaintiff has abandoned the arguments supporting her Rule 60(b) motion to set aside. It is well established that “a contention not raised and argued in the trial court may not be raised and argued for the first time in the appellate court.” Wood v. Weldon, 160 N.C. App. 697, 699, 586 S.E.2d 801, 803 (2003); see also N.C. R. App. P. 10(a)(1) (2017). Similarly, issues raised below but “not presented and discussed in a party's brief are deemed abandoned” on appeal. N.C. R. App. P. 28(a).
In her motion, plaintiff asserted that “new evidence” of defendants’ employment practices was discovered in September 2016, when the Chairman and CEO of Wells Fargo testified before Congress. Plaintiff alleged that Wells Fargo employees “committed crimes” to protect their positions, and that she was personally subjected to “sub-human” performance goals, such as the requirement “to open up eight new accounts for each existing account holder, while banking industry standards were at two to three accounts per existing account holder[.]”
On appeal, however, plaintiff abandons these arguments and instead attacks the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award. But that issue was not before the Full Commission on appeal from the denial of plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion to set aside. As noted in the 9 November 2017 order, since “neither party filed an appeal of Deputy Commissioner Perlungher's Opinion and Award[,]” that decision “constitutes a final judgment of the Commission.”
Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to show that the Commission abused its discretion by denying her Rule 60(b) motion to set aside the Deputy Commissioner's Opinion and Award. We affirm.
AFFIRMED.
Report per Rule 30(e).
CALABRIA, Judge.
Chief Judge McGEE and Judge DIETZ concur.
I so have a job for life this is nothing if you can get money for this man I’ve got stuff
Plaintiff and manager are in this article -
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14822367/Banker-Debra-Jones-fear-dolls-lawsuit-PTSD-Chucky.html
Appears she filed an EEOC charge. Given her manager knew of her “fear of dolls”, she very well may win this case as looks like she disclosed having a disability to HR. Curious if Truist settles. Can find details on US Courts PACER system. Suit was filed in western district of North Carolina.
Interesting to note that a multimillion dollar verdict was granted to a former Wells Fargo employee in this district for wrongful termination after WF fired a remote employee for not RTO after they rescinded his accommodation to WFH. Dude had a disability. The western district of North Carolina has a history of ruling against banks in disability related suits.
https://www.wsoctv.com/news/local/former-truist-employee-sues-bank-claims-manager-triggered-ptsd-with-chucky-doll-prank/EYMZWZRNAJC5VN4G7RP2GYHOCQ/#