A federal lawsuit alleges that a North Carolina-based turkey processing company failed to accommodate an employee’s disability and terminated her employment after she sought medical leave for cancer treatment. The complaint was filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina on March 31, 2026, naming Butterball, LLC as the defendant.
According to the filing, the EEOC brings this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Title I of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. The agency asserts that Butterball violated federal law by refusing to provide a reasonable accommodation to Marie Marc, an employee diagnosed with breast cancer, and by firing her because of her disability or her need for such accommodation.
The complaint outlines that Ms. Marc began working at Butterball’s Mount Olive facility in January 2013 as a Second Processing Employee. She identifies as Haitian and primarily speaks Haitian Creole. Her daughter often assisted her in communicating with English-speaking staff. The EEOC states that Butterball employs many workers who do not speak English and frequently relies on bilingual coworkers as unofficial translators.
The legal dispute centers on events beginning in August 2023 when Ms. Marc informed Butterball about her cancer diagnosis and requested leave for medical appointments and chemotherapy recovery. With her daughter’s help, she contacted both Butterball and Voya Financial, Inc., which administers Butterball’s benefits programs. Following instructions from Butterball, Ms. Marc attempted to request medical leave through Voya’s online system but allegedly encountered difficulties navigating the process due to language barriers and lack of support.
The complaint reports that despite providing doctor’s notes excusing her absences for treatment, Ms. Marc received attendance points under Butterball’s absenteeism policy for missing work due to chemotherapy sessions at the end of August and early September 2023. On September 5, 2023, she was issued a final Attendance Notice warning that further unexcused absences could result in termination.
Ms. Marc missed additional shifts between September 7 and September 11 due to ongoing treatments. According to the EEOC, Butterball removed her from its schedule on September 11 and terminated her employment two days later without notifying her directly. When Ms. Marc returned to work on September 18, she discovered her badge no longer worked; only then did a human resources representative inform her she had been fired.
The EEOC contends that throughout this period, neither Butterball nor its third-party administrator provided adequate assistance or clear information regarding leave policies or how non-English speaking employees like Ms. Marc could access accommodations related to their disabilities. The complaint states: “Defendant washed its hands of the matter and left Ms. Marc…to deal with its third-party administrator without assistance.”
Furthermore, the agency alleges that Voya failed to process Ms. Marc’s request for leave appropriately and repeatedly redirected inquiries without resolving them: “Whenever Ms. Marc and/or her daughter called Voya regarding the status of Ms. Marc’s request, Voya simply passed them back and forth between the Supplemental Health Benefits Department and the Leave Management Department without addressing Ms. Marc’s need for leave as an accommodation.”
The EEOC claims these actions deprived Ms. Marc of equal employment opportunities based on disability status in violation of Section 102 of Title I of the ADA (42 U.S.C §12112). It also alleges intentional conduct by Butterball carried out with malice or reckless indifference toward federally protected rights.
As relief, the EEOC requests a permanent injunction preventing future discrimination against individuals with disabilities at Butterball facilities; orders requiring changes in policies; reinstatement or front pay for Ms. Marc; compensation for lost wages; damages for emotional distress; punitive damages; costs associated with bringing suit; and any other relief deemed proper by the court.
Attorneys representing the EEOC include Catherine L. Eschbach (Acting General Counsel), Christopher Lage (Deputy General Counsel), Melinda C. Dugas (Regional Attorney), Zoe G. Mahood (Assistant Regional Attorney), Samuel H. Williams (Senior Trial Attorney), and Gabriel O. Mondino (Trial Attorney). The case is identified as Case No.: 5:26-cv-00202-FL.
