Cooper v. Franklin Templeton

Background

Amy Cooper, who was formerly employed by Franklin Templeton in New York as a Portfolio Manager, sued Franklin Templeton, related Franklin Templeton entities, CEO Jenny Johnson, and other named and unnamed defendants. The lawsuit followed Cooper’s May 25, 2020 confrontation with Christian Cooper in Central Park. A video of the incident became widely viewed on social media. Franklin Templeton first announced that the employee involved had been placed on administrative leave and then announced that it had terminated that employee after an internal review.

Cooper alleged that she was fired because of her race and sex. She brought race-discrimination claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law, and race- and sex-discrimination claims under the New York City Human Rights Law. She also alleged defamation based on Franklin Templeton’s public statements and brought claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligence. The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim.

Discrimination Claims

The court dismissed Cooper’s claims under Section 1981 and the New York State Human Rights Law because she did not plead facts supporting even a minimal inference that discriminatory intent motivated her termination. The public statements condemned racism but did not mention Cooper’s race, and the court stated that condemning racism is not the same as discriminating against someone because of that person’s race.

Cooper also identified three male employees or former company leaders whom she claimed had engaged in misconduct but were not terminated. The court held that she had not plausibly alleged that these people were similarly situated. Their positions, responsibilities, locations, or relationship to the company differed substantially from hers, and the alleged misconduct—including insider trading, plagiarism, alleged sexual harassment, and a domestic-violence conviction—was not comparable to the conduct at issue in Cooper’s case. The court also rejected her allegation that the company’s investigation was discriminatory, finding that the complaint offered only conclusory assertions on that point.

The court separately analyzed the New York City Human Rights Law, which has a more liberal standard than federal and state discrimination law. Even under that standard, however, the court held that Cooper had not plausibly alleged that she was treated less well because of her race or sex. The court therefore dismissed the New York City Human Rights Law claim as well.

Defamation Claims

The alleged defamatory statements were Franklin Templeton’s May 26, 2020 Twitter statement that it had conducted an internal review and did not tolerate racism, and Johnson’s statements that the facts were undisputed and that the defendants had zero tolerance for racism.

The court held that Cooper had not plausibly alleged that the statement about an internal review was substantially untrue. The complaint alleged that the company watched the video, communicated with Cooper, and discussed her conduct before firing her. Those actions could qualify as an internal review, even if Cooper believed the investigation was inadequate. The court also held that statements characterizing conduct as racist were protected opinions rather than provable statements of fact. The statements did not imply that the defendants relied on undisclosed facts, and the relevant events were already widely known through the viral video and public reporting. The court dismissed the defamation claims.

Other Claims and Disposition

Cooper did not respond to the defendants’ arguments concerning her intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress and negligence claims, and her counsel said at oral argument that she was withdrawing them. The court stated that those claims were therefore dismissed; alternatively, to the extent they had not been formally withdrawn, the court treated them as abandoned.

Judge Ronnie Abrams granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the action. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion and close the case. The opinion does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.