Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Amy Cooper (yes, that Amy Cooper) Sues Employer Over Termination After Viral Central Park Video

Amy Cooper (yes, that Amy Cooper) Sues Employer Over Termination After Viral Central Park Video

Amy Cooper was nicknamed the “Central Park Karen” for calling police on a black man allegedly harassing her, but the video led to her being called racist, and her employer fired her and denounced her. Now she’s suing that employer.

https://twitter.com/CBSEveningNews/status/1265417827697246218?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1265417827697246218%7Ctwgr%5E&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fdailycaller.com%2F2020%2F07%2F06%2Famy-cooper-charged-misdemeanor-false-charges-christian-cooper-central-park%2F

I don’t think we covered this much. Only once, actually.

On May 25, 2020, the same day as the George Floyd death, Amy Cooper was with her dog in Central Park, New York City, when she called the police alleging a man (Christian Cooper, no relation) was menacing her. The man took video, as a precaution, and the video certainly suggested she was overreacting, or lying.

But it was her emphasis on the phone to police that the man was “African-American” that, particularly in the supercharged atmosphere, set the internet on fire. Melody Cooper, the sister of Christian Cooper, posted the video on Twitter

(video also here)

The reaction was swift, from celebrities and others. It was as big an internet pile-on as I’ve ever seen, with claims that Cooper exposed the man to possible death as a black man to be confronted by police. She was doxxed, and her employer, Franklin Templeton Investments, fired her over the incident. People tried to make her unemployable. She also had her dog taken away.

She was charged with making a false police report. The criminal charges against her were dismissed in February 2021:

“Given the issues at hand and Ms. Cooper’s lack of criminal background, we offered her, consistent with our position on many misdemeanor cases involving a first arrest, an alternative, restorative justice resolution,” Assistant District Attorney Joan Illuzzi told a Manhattan judge, according to a statement provided to NPR.

The program, Illuzzi explained, is “designed not just to punish but to educate and promote community healing.”

Illuzzi said Cooper completed a total of five sessions and that her therapist described it as a “moving experience,” adding that Amy Cooper “learned a lot in their sessions together.”

Because Cooper completed the restorative justice sessions to the prosecutor’s satisfaction, the Manhattan District Attorney’s office moved to dismiss the charge.

The judge then granted a motion to dismiss, according to the District Attorney’s Office statement.

She also got her dog back:

The cocker spaniel belonging to the white woman who called police on Christian Cooper, a black man who was bird-watching in Central Park in May, has been returned to her.

“Abandoned Angels would like to express its gratitude for the outpouring of support regarding the dog that was recently placed in our custody, following release of a troubling video that was brought to our attention,” according to a statement from Abandoned Angels Cocker Spaniel Rescue, the shelter from where Cooper adopted the dog.

The dog had been evaluated by its veterinarian, “who found that he was in good health,” the statement said. Various New York City law enforcement agencies declined to take the dog into custody, according to the shelter.

“Accordingly, and consistent with input received from law enforcement, we have now complied with the owner’s request for return of the dog,” according to the statement.

Amy Cooper now has sued her former employer, here’s the Summary from the Complaint (pdf.):

1. On May 25, 2020, Plaintiff was confronted in Central Park by Christian Cooper while walking her dog alone. This confrontation became international news as a racial flashpoint, characterized as a privileged white female “Karen” caught on video verbally abusing an African American male with no possible reason other than the color of his skin.

2. This characterization was created and nurtured, in whole or in part, by the public statements published by the Defendants to millions of people reporting that it had: a) performed a legitimate investigation into its employee and the events of May 25, 2020, b) that the legitimate investigation determined indisputably that Plaintiff was a racist, and c) that due to the results of their legitimate investigation, the Plaintiff’s employment with the Defendants was terminated.

3. Franklin Templeton’s alleged investigation and results provided legitimacy to the “Karen” story, and appeared to provide justification for those who sought the destruction of the Plaintiff’s life.

4. But the Defendants never performed an investigation into the confrontation between Plaintiff and Christian Cooper in Central Park on May 25, 2020.

5. Even a perfunctory investigation would have shown that Plaintiff did not shout at Christian Cooper or call the police from Central Park on May 25, 2020 because she was a racist–she did these things because she was alone in the park and frightened to death after being selected as the next target of Christian Cooper, an overzealous birdwatcher engaged in Central Park’s ongoing feud between birdwatchers and dog owners.

6. Christian Cooper was a birdwatcher with a history of aggressively confronting dog owners in Central Park who walked their dogs without a leash. It was Christian Cooper’s practice and intent to cause dog owners to be fearful for their safety and the safety of their dogs, and he had a history of doing so to people, including to one African American man who wrote national media stating: “when I saw that video, I thought, I cannot imagine if he approached [Plaintiff] the same way how she may have genuinely been afraid for her life.”

7. But Franklin Templeton perpetuated and legitimized the story of “Karen” vs. an innocent African American to its perceived advantage, with reckless disregard for the destruction of Plaintiff’s life in the process.

Her asserted legal claims are:

FIRST COUNT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Race Discrimination in Violation of § 1981

SECOND COUNT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Race and Gender Discrimination Under the New York State Human Rights Law

THIRD COUNT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Race and Gender Discrimination Under the New York City Human Rights Law

FOURTH COUNT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Defamation Under New York State Common Law

FIFTH COUNT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Defamation Per Se Under New York State Common Law

SIXTH COUNT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress Under New York State Common Law

SEVENTH COUNT AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS
Negligence Under New York State Common Law

How is “the internet” reacting? Pretty much as you would expect.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Brave Sir Robbin | May 26, 2021 at 9:09 pm

Go get ’em Amy. You ex-employer has DEEP pockets. They thought they could stomp all over you, spit on you, defame you, and ruin you, so they could look virtuous in the eyes of a mob.

Best of luck!

    I didn’t see any claim in this article that she has a case so I am a bit skeptical. Is “has become a highly controversial figure” a protected class?

    Lets not forget that tape will not come across well to any jury. How do you feel about a self righteous Karen who believes police are all racist SS men hunting down black people who then actively threatens to call them on a black man only to find out her anti-police bigotry was a lie? The man in the tape was also badly behaved but she is not suing the other person in the tape she is suing her former employer.

    In a trial the jury emotions are important and there is a tape that will incline them against her. Maybe her lawyers are just that good that she could win, but I think they would agree this is a very tough case for them.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Danny. | May 27, 2021 at 11:10 am

      I see an edited video. We do not see what happens before she apparently goes off the rails. It is said he threatened her and specifically her dog’s life. If someone walks up to you in a park and says he is going to kill your dog, you might take that as a bit of threat. I do not think it is even disputed that this what the person recording the incident did in regards to threatening her do at least..

      Her “crime” was injecting the man’s race into the complaint. It is arguable if she thought she herself was endangered, but if a guy walks up to you and says he is going to kill your dog, which is right next to you, it would be fair to infer a threat to you as well.

      Charges against her were trumped up, then dismissed after some sort of fascist re-education process was completed.

      Her employer fired her, quite publicly, for racism and accused her of breaking the law. This public firing and assertion harmed her. She has a case. Whether she can win?

      The goal is never to actually go to court. The goal is to settle. The threat for both parties is this goes to court.

EIGHTH COUNT AGAINST THE PLAINTIFF:

    pfg in reply to pfg. | May 26, 2021 at 9:21 pm

    Being a flaming A.H. who doesn’t recognize common sense or the undeserved clemency shown to me by strangers despite my being completely in the wrong.

I’m on the fence about this. If employers want the ability to fire someone for thei speech outside the workplace, they should get that in writing PRIOR to employing that person.

Like her or now, I hope she wins.

    healthguyfsu in reply to TheFineReport.com. | May 27, 2021 at 1:08 am

    Agreed. This will be a defeat against the cancel mobs that go after every day people and try to blast them on social media…albeit a hollow one because none of them will be held culpable for their part.

Ha ha. File and hope to get a settlement for cost of defense? Maybe but that !ight be a stretch.

Behaving in public in a bigoted way which clearly she is guilty of, compounded by false police report….that’s not something an employer needs to tolerate.

Add the fact that she displayed extremely poor judgment and was already violating the leash ordinance when reminded by the gentleman.

Then she literally became the poster child for self entitled karens …

I wouldn’t hire anyone with that attitude and regardless of where her true character was revealed no employer should subject other employees to her narcissism and self righteous entitlement.

IMO she can pound sand. If I was FTI I wouldn’t settle, I would exhaust every avenue to bankrupt her with legal costs.

    kyrrat in reply to CommoChief. | May 26, 2021 at 10:34 pm

    Betcha the lawyer is a family member with a similar disposition to Ms. Cooper.

    You hit the nail on the head: you wouldn’t HIRE her.

    We’re talking about degrees of behavior. Want that camel’s nose in under your tent?

    There’s a saying: There but for the grace of God go I.

    I hope wins, not for.her sake, but for all of ours.

      Agree. Her rights as an employee should be protected for the benefit of all. Economic capital punishment (dismissal) for an apparent out of character error in judgment, does not represent ‘ the punishment fitting the crime’.

        CommoChief in reply to lexman. | May 27, 2021 at 6:59 am

        Her rights as an employee?

        No. You and Cooper seem to want to reside in a nonexistent world free from consequence.

        All she needed to do is say ‘you’re right, I gave in and let him off leash’. Then put the leash on and walk away. End of story and no drama. Instead she went drama queen/Karen/bad girlfriend.

        Her true character was revealed. No way I would put up with someone who is this self entitled. This is not the person you want on your team.

        Milhouse in reply to lexman. | May 27, 2021 at 9:26 am

        What “rights as an employee”? What rights do you think an employee has?

          Henry P in reply to Milhouse. | May 28, 2021 at 3:12 pm

          Unless the State of NY has gutted it (which is certainly possible), the concept of “employment at will” still applies. She wasn’t fired because of her sex, race, or religion, so she’s not in a “protected” class. Unless her employment is governed by a collective bargaining agreement or an employment contract, it seems to me that Franklin Templeton has the power to fire her. I wouldn’t want a harpy like her working for me. It is only a matter of time and people like her would be asserting some other grievance against Franklin Templeton.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to CommoChief. | May 27, 2021 at 12:19 pm

    Please, how many blacks have ginned up fake hate crimes and filed “false police reports” without any repercussions when it comes to light the whole hate crime incident is proven not to have happened.

    Jusse Smollet. The poster boy for fake hate crimes and fake police reports.

    Voyager in reply to CommoChief. | May 27, 2021 at 3:28 pm

    The case will likely hinge on how the filmer was behaving to the other people he had confronted, and his behavior in the part of the filming not shown.

    Note, at least one other person the camera guy confronted told the media that “when I saw that video, I thought, I cannot imagine if he approached [Plaintiff] the same way how she may have genuinely been afraid for her life.”

    If it can be shown that the camera guys off camera behavior was genuinely threatening, her case becomes much stronger.

    Remember, she wasn’t fired for not leashing her dog: she was fired for racism. If that turns out to be, not just untrue, but easily probable to be not true, then they’ve wronged her.

1. She had no right to have her dog off leash in the park.

2. Therefore he had every right to confront her about it.

3. She had no reason to believe she was in any danger from him; nothing in his behavior put her in reasonable fear of imminent harm. Whether she actually felt an (unreasonable) fear or only pretended to is an open question; but if she did it’s overwhelmingly likely that it was because of his race and sex. If she didn’t then she made a false report.

4. The idea that she put him at risk of being killed is ridiculous. Even if she knowingly made a false report in order to punish him for confronting her about her offense, she had no reason to believe he would come to any harm from the police. However if she falsely believed that police go around gunning black people down on sight, then she showed a callous disregard for his life by exposing him to this imaginary risk.

5. The key question is whether her employer said the things she claims it said. If it claimed to have made an investigation but didn’t, then she probably has a case. If it claimed her motive for calling the police was racist when in fact it had no reason to believe so, then she probably has a case. But did it make those claims? I don’t know. If she’s only characterizing its statements that way, then she would have no case. And I think that’s likely.

    So if we catch you jaywalking, we can get you fired?

    Enough. Let an employer state their off-duty behavior regs in advance, or don’t complain about them.

    A key component of our justice system – our former system, at lesst – is to have adequate notice.

    Hope.she wins – for our sake.

    healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 1:10 am

    The response was proportional to her perceived fear, which was minimal to be generous. However, calling the police on someone is not a crime and it not trying to get him killed…that’s the laughable hyperbole of the lefty cult cancel mob that is bad as her call in the first place.

    Count me on the side that hopes they get taken down a peg or two.

      She called the police expecting them to believe her over the black man, and she appears to have done so knowingly and maliciously (based on what she’d been taught about her “white privilege,” not realizing that cops don’t buy that garbage as a rule and tend to follow actual evidence and facts — at least as of this writing). She’s a disgusting, racist lunatic who attempted to wield her “white privilege” against a black man (something no conservative would ever do and not just because we know this whole “white privilege lunacy is . . . lunacy). She should be fined for filing a false police report since the police found that she was never threatened (and that, indeed, it was she who threatened the victim).

      Separately, should she have been fired? I don’t know. What were her terms of employment? Could her employer, according to that agreement, fire her for making false statements to police? For filing a false police report? My guess is yes, they can do that. Can they fire her for being a brainwashed racist lunatic who actually thought she could just say whatever about a black person and be believed? Probably not. But that’s not really the point. She’s unstable and freaking nuts, would you want her working for you?

        Earlier this year, my next door neighbor called the cops on me for getting upset after her dog (a non-stop barking machine) lunged at me trying to bite me. This was the 3rd time and again while on a leash. Two years earlier when she was moving in, her dog almost bit me in the face when I stooped to pet it, ripping the collar off of my shirt.

        She told the cops I threatened to kill her and all kinds of lies (Vietnam vet with PTSD, history of threatening neighbors and much more). Fortunately, many neighbors had also been complaining about her dog and even writing letters. The cops talked to several of they and the. building manager vouched for me (I’ve been living here for 25 years). The cops were professional about it and probably a bit amused. Nothing came of it other than that Karen moving out a month later.

        I love dogs and cats. But the dogs are not the problem. It’s the owners who don’t control them. Some people just should not own dogs. That appears to have been a central issue of this incident. An irresponsible dog owner lashing out.

        She’s unstable and freaking nuts, would you want her working for you?
        Oh, honey, I wouldn’t want anyone in NYC working for me – the place is full of instability and it’s practically an orchard as far as nuts go. It’s merely the more ‘urbane’ form of California.

          DaveGinOly in reply to GWB. | May 27, 2021 at 12:29 pm

          How many of her generation could keep their jobs if they could be fired for being self-absorbed snots with delusions of entitlement and moral superiority?

        Voyager in reply to Fuzzy Slippers. | May 27, 2021 at 3:32 pm

        We should be cautious about what the video says. It was made by one of the parties and likely shows only the part of the story that person wants shown.

        Given we’ve now apparently got at least one other person asserting that the camera guy did make then genuinely afraid for their safety, the situation may not be what it seemed in the surface.

        Time may tell.

      Milhouse in reply to healthguyfsu. | May 27, 2021 at 9:44 am

      Calling the police on someone certainly is a crime. Making a false report.

        healthguyfsu in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 11:42 am

        And how many of those get prosecuted unless they involved the charged buzz words of the day like “racism”?

        People call the police for stupid crap all of the time. It’s a crime in the sense that anything other than married, consensusal sex is a “crime” in VA.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 1:32 pm

        Only if the police actually file a report. If they simply break up the incident and leave without filing a report then there’s no “filing false police report”. Simply calling 911 isn’t a crime. Nor is it “filing a false police report”. If it were then all those lunatic blacks that call 911 because they didn’t get enough pickles on their McD supersize obesity happy meal would all be guilty of that crime.

    lexman in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 1:52 am

    Point 5 is key. If her pleading is true, fundamental issue here is protecting her from employer( in their own self interest) attempting to punish her for non-criminal and non-employment related speech/behaviour.

      Milhouse in reply to lexman. | May 27, 2021 at 9:38 am

      No, point 5 is about defamation. Her employer had the right to fire her for any reason that it thought sufficient, unless she had a contract that says otherwise, which is unlikely. But it had no right to make public statements about her that were not true and were defamatory. The question is whether it did so. She says yes, and if she’s right then I think she has a case. But I’m skeptical that she’s characterizing its statements correctly.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 11:13 am

        You have a right to fire someone. You do not have a right defame them in the process. Normally public comment about a personnel incident only asserts a person no longer works for a firm and does not state why, because that may risk defamation.

        Two nasty people meet in a park, but what happened to her as a result was uncalled for.

        Danny in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 12:32 pm

        She made it clear she believed cops are racist bleeps who will hurt black men when given the chance and then called them in to hurt a black man over an argument.

        I think her motivation was the argument, but I don’t see any cross over to the point when defamation law would kick in.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 1:56 pm

        You mean like this tweet where Franklin Templeton all but accused Amy Cooper of being a racist?

        https://twitter.com/FTI_US/status/1265348185201008641

          Yes, like that. She says that tweet is defamatory. I’m not so sure. It implies that she engaged in racism, since otherwise “we don’t tolerate racism” would be a non-sequitur. But there are several difficulties, starting with the fact that a mere statement that someone is a racist is inherently a statement of opinion, and therefore cannot be defamatory.

          Where there’s an implication that such an opinion rests on undisclosed facts, then those facts (if untrue) can be defamatory. But where the facts (if any) on which the opinion rests are known then it can’t be. This case is kind of in the middle. It doesn’t state the facts on which it’s based, it just said “we made an internal inquiry” without saying what it found. But the presumption is that it found the same facts that were well known at the time, in which case the opinion is not defamatory.

    Danny in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 2:03 am

    I’m going to have to disagree on points 2 (he had the right to confront her I think he had the right to report her to park authorities but from what I understand he does not work there, is not law enforcement and there are people who you are allowed to report rule infringement to it isn’t your job) and 5 (that she has a case if things are as she said).

    A private assurance from your boss means very little, first you likely can’t prove such an assurance took place and even if you could your boss is allowed to change his mind.

      Milhouse in reply to Danny. | May 27, 2021 at 9:35 am

      2. He had the right to confront her, just as anyone has the right to confront someone doing something wrong. It doesn’t have to be your job. What you’re saying is the Kitty Genovese theory of public conduct; walk past wrongdoing, close your eyes and don’t interfere, because it’s not your job.

      5. I don’t understand what you mean here. What have private assurances got to do with anything? If her employer defamed her she has a case against it. Plain and simple.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 11:15 am

        “He had the right to confront her, just as anyone has the right to confront someone doing something wrong.”

        You may confront, but you may not threaten. “Hey, put you dog on a lease or I’ll kill it.” That’s a threat. She has a right to call the police and ask for protection.

        Danny in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 12:45 pm

        2. He was luring her dog away with treats which he most definitely did not have a right to do and creates more danger, and once it clear she didn’t want to talk to him he had no right to continue trying. The dog treat thing was also unjustifiable. There are park and police you could report things to, you don’t start fights. That doesn’t justify her behavior (remember in her mind police are violent racists out to hurt black people) but we have people hired to report things to instead of everyone confronts everyone else.

        5. She would have to prove that there was no basis for her boss calling her racist if she is just doing defamation and not trying to allege she was wrongly fired so she doesn’t have a case there either. I think her motive was hating one black person; others could reasonably from the video think she hated all of them.

        The truth is the cops are not racist. In her mind cops are racist and hurt black people when given the chance and she gave them a chance. Libel is very difficult to prove in this country and she isn’t even close to it.

    daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 5:06 am

    3. Dude tried to lure her dog with dog treats he implied were tainted, requiring her to get within arm’s reach of him to get the dog back.

    it’s overwhelmingly likely that it was because of his race and sex

    *cough*FBIcrimestatistics*cough*

      Milhouse in reply to daniel_ream. | May 27, 2021 at 9:43 am

      She had no reasonable cause for fear of imminent harm. FBI crime statistics are not sufficient to create that. If she experienced an unreasonable fear, then it’s likely that those statistics were a major factor in that. And since it was unreasonable, it’s fair to call it racist.

        daniel_ream in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 9:49 am

        We’re going to have to agree to disagree on that one. Lone woman in an isolated part of Central Park, aggressively confronted by a much larger man who proceeds to lure her dog with treats and make veiled threats? That’s a reasonable fear. Race doesn’t even enter into it.

          Cooper in reply to daniel_ream. | May 27, 2021 at 10:05 am

          Completely agree. I’m a woman and I do not buy into the belief that all men are predators, but I’m realistic that some men are (obviously some women are too, but that’s not what we’re talking about here). Most men are bigger and stronger than I am, so I wouldn’t be able to fight someone off that meant me harm, so I have to be aware even though I know I’m usually going to be okay. He was being aggressive and made creepy threats against her and her dog, by his own account of the events! It’s understandable that it made her anxious and I believe it’s understandable how she was behaving to an extent if she was panicked. I think so much of the outrage was focused on her, and not enough reasonableness that they were both wrong.

          artichoke in reply to daniel_ream. | May 27, 2021 at 3:29 pm

          Not only are you a woman, but you’re a cooper.

        GWB in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 10:45 am

        If she feared because of statistics, then I don’t see how it’s an unreasonable fear. If those statistics contradict her fear, then it would be unreasonable.

    ss396 in reply to Milhouse. | May 27, 2021 at 10:00 am

    Did her employer terminate her over this incident, or were there other causes for her termination? There are two sides to that, and we so far only have hers.

She shouldn’t get the dog back…look at the way she’s choking it out in the first photo. That’s physical abuse.

    daniel_ream in reply to Paul. | May 27, 2021 at 9:50 am

    You’ve never owned a cocker, have you.

      No, I have not. I’ve owned many dogs in my life, mostly retrievers.

      She sure does look unhinged in that picture though, and really cranking the dog by it’s neck.

      But I take your point, some breeds can be cray-cray, especially when their owner is cray-cray.

You are all excoriating this.woman. She may be an ass and a petty lawbreaker, but who did she hit?What did she loot? Whose building did she burn? What treason did she commit? What bribe did she take? What communist group did she give billions to? What foreign leader did she shake down? What US foreign aid did she embezzle? What pandemic did she lie about?

    At issue is what employment law did her boss break?

    I don’t know if she is always a violent and dishonest person (she thought cops are racist scumbags who hurt black men when they get the chance and called them over essentially an argument with a black man) or if that was a one off thing.

    What I do know is her firing doesn’t seem to violate any laws

    https://www.employmentlawfirms.com/resources/what-you-cant-fire-someone-for.html

    To be more specific to NY

    https://ag.ny.gov/job-termination

    “In many cases, yes. In New York State, a private-sector employer is not required to have good cause to discharge an employee. The employer can do so for reasons many people might consider unfair, such as to replace you with a member of the boss’s family, for fighting even if the other worker wasn’t fired, because your boss didn’t like you, or because your flight was cancelled and you had to extend your vacation. Public-sector employees (those who work for the government) and workers covered by a collective-bargaining agreement may have more legal protection.”

    Unless she negotiated into her contract some clause that makes her firing breach of contract that is a pretty decisive answer.

      ss396 in reply to Danny. | May 27, 2021 at 10:05 am

      Did her employer state that the video was the reason for her termination? Or is she just assuming that she was terminated because of this video? All we have so far is her version of it.

        Lucifer Morningstar in reply to ss396. | May 27, 2021 at 11:47 am

        Her employer stated that they did an “investigation” and then fired her. Worse yet, they then published a potentially libelous statement stating that her employment was terminated because she is a racist thereby pretty much ending any chance she had of further gainful employment.

        Did they have the right to terminate her employment? Most likely. Did they have the right to publish to the public the reason they terminated her? Fuck, no they didn’t. They only did that to keep the woke mob off their backs. And for that I hope she takes her ex-employer for everything they are worth for their potentially libelous actions and lies.

        Danny in reply to ss396. | May 27, 2021 at 12:48 pm

        Because we only have her view I have no idea, even without dishonesty a memory could be wrong.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to Danny. | May 27, 2021 at 11:23 am

      I think it’s a defamation issue. They can fire her, but they cannot defame her in the process. The only safe statement is “Employee X no longer is an employee of firm A.” It is a factual statement that does not make assertions about the person fired publicly.

      I do not take issue with the firing – I take the issue with defamation and the cruel piling on. Quite unnecessary.

        She would have to prove her boss knowingly lied, not that he said something that isn’t true (although she would have to prove that).

        A lot of plaintiffs prove the it isn’t true part thinking that gives them the case only to falter on the no basis for thinking it is true and the proving the he/she lied.

        I don’t like the two minute hate moments our society goes through (and in this case I think both parties were very poorly behaved) but sometimes the law is powerless to intervene and it looks like this is one of those times.

When I read about this story back in May 2020, I thought there must be more to this tale…..soooo, I did some digging….

First of all, most people have only seen the edited version of the Cooper vs Cooper video.

In the full video Mr Cooper says, “If I give your dog some of these dog treats, you won’t like what happens…” It sounds like he’s implying the dog treats are tainted. That is why Ms Cooper freaks out ! (IMO)

According to a NYC neighborhood blog post, there is (or was) a on going conflict between the bird watchers and dog owners in this part of the park. Mr Cooper has also confronted other dog owners… He thinks the dogs chase away the birds.

    daniel_ream in reply to tgrondo. | May 27, 2021 at 5:03 am

    Yes, you’d think people would have learned by now not to fall for these Pallywood tactics. As the original article alludes, Christian Cooper is a massive jackass who carries dog treats expressly for the purpose of luring unleashed dogs, and aggressively confronting dog owners in Central Park. He did this to Amy Cooper, who was then faced with the prospect of having to get within arm’s reach of Christian Cooper to get her dog back.

    All of this handwringing about WAAAAYCISSSSM from a site that regularly posts news articles about spontaneous attacks by blacks on other races is a bit rich.

    Had she obeyed the law (a very sensible law), none of this would have happened. Christian Cooper isn’t the only one who has had it with irresponsible dog owners. Ask any runner. Or mother pushing a baby carriage past a dog barking at them. It’s a critical detail to all of this. Control your dogs! That’s why they have leash laws!

      CommoChief in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 27, 2021 at 7:13 am

      Exactly. I have English Mastiffs and when in public they are on leash even though they are obedient to voice command. It isn’t hard to do the right thing.

      If you mess up and lapse then when someone else reminds you don’t get all pissy. Be a grown up, correct your behavior and apologize.

      Cooper could have chosen that path. Instead she was offended that someone dared to correct her and called the cops. She made her bed now she can lay in it, complaining about the lack of comfort isn’t something I want to hear about.

        Except you’re ignoring some of the information (Lucifer notes it below and others noted it above): he made vague threats about her dog while luring it to him with treats.

          CommoChief in reply to GWB. | May 27, 2021 at 11:58 am

          No I am not ignoring it. I am dismissing it.

          Had Cooper simply been willing to abide by the social compact; obey simple ordinance for learning her dog, there wouldn’t have been any issues.

          Instead of immediately correcting her unlawful action when the gentleman reminded her about the requirements for a leash she chose a path of obstinate refusal.

          Should the conversation have taken a darker turn? Nope. However, it was her series of choices that led to that path.

          Let’s say this dude was like the character in the movie ‘Unhinged’. One never knows who the stranger is nor their mental state nor propensity for sudden violence.

          Obviously her actions don’t merit violence but if when one is reminded about something as simple as a leash ordinance and one chooses to display a defiant attitude of self entitlement what happens next does flow from that choice.

          If she was.genuinely scared then why not simply leash the dog and leave the area and the man at a rapid clip? Because she wasn’t truly threatened she remained where she was facing down this guy while she called the cops.

        Voyager in reply to CommoChief. | May 27, 2021 at 4:17 pm

        Proportionality buddy. You can tell someone they’re jaywalking, but you can’t shoot them for it.

        Likewise, you can’t off someone’s dog just for not being on a leash.

          CommoChief in reply to Voyager. | May 27, 2021 at 9:31 pm

          Not sure what you are saying here. So far as I am aware no one was injured including the dog.

          As to can’t ….I believe you really mean shouldn’t because someone can do things which are not legal nor proportional.

      Lucifer Morningstar in reply to Pasadena Phil. | May 27, 2021 at 9:48 am

      And if some strange person approaches my dog whether on leash or not and starts offering it treats of dubious provenance while stating that I won’t like what happens then least that will happen is that they will have to make an unscheduled stop at the hospital emergency room. Just saying.

      I don’t disagree that Ms Cooper was violating the leash law, but I do disagree that she filed a false police report…

      The video most people saw was deceptively edited and left out Mr Cooper being a creepy F’er…. So I don’t blame Ms C for being freaked. (although she may have overreacted…)

If Mr. Cooper had been threatened in the past by an unleashed dog his concern was understandable, but what started all this was the clear fact she violated the law by having her dog unleashed in the park. Everything else is “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.

If her employer is like all the ones I’ve heard of or been employed by, and there are many, improper behavior can get you fired. She shot her mouth off and now doesn’t want to bear the consequences.

This is on her.
.

Eddie Coyle | May 27, 2021 at 8:41 am

Pretty sure she is an ‘at will’ employee. The employer’s mistake may have been in publicly stating a reason, they did not have to.

Reminds me of that old intel saw “never nod when a knowing glance will do…”

    r2468 in reply to Eddie Coyle. | May 27, 2021 at 10:24 am

    Agreed. In my state most employees can be terminated without cause. Only union members get their jobs back after getting fired. One example I witnessed. Employee was told they don’t work here anymore. They asked if they were fired or laid off and the answer was you don’t work here anymore. No more was said.

So, there is evidence that A Cooper acted from a sense of entitlement provoking C Cooper who overreacted on more than one occasion to the same stimulus, and that her employer took a knee to a democratic protest. Ironically, the evidence is that the mob acted with diversitist motives, including racism and sexism. Some, Select Black Lives Matter

Baby Lives Matter

Her employer clearly mismanaged this situation,

It would have been safer to fire her and tell the public that she is no longer employed and explain the reason is confidential.

    There is still an avenue for defamation by implication. It’s significantly harder to succeed, obviously.

    NYBruin in reply to ParkRidgeIL. | May 27, 2021 at 11:01 am

    Or they could have declined to comment on the matter and just let her do her job (assuming she was a decent employee).

    artichoke in reply to ParkRidgeIL. | May 27, 2021 at 3:22 pm

    True, but I’m glad they weren’t so sly and gave her a chance for compensation for losing her job over an unrelated incident.

drsamherman | May 27, 2021 at 11:15 am

My lawyer tells me that wrongful termination lawsuits are a bear to prove, and also added defamation was even more difficult. I have no reason to disbelieve him, as I had to testify in a wrongful termination/defamation lawsuit back in the early 2000’s for the defendant.

If anything, my considered opinion is that the plaintiff is going for a settlement and so is her attorney. Discovered will be a real issue for the plaintiff because she comes off looking very bad—and we don’t know how well she was performing on the job (nor do I care).

She has to prove the case, and I’d say she has an uphill battle due to the warped political climate in Noo Yawk.

    drsamherman in reply to drsamherman. | May 27, 2021 at 11:16 am

    Sorry—make that “Discovery”.

    Brave Sir Robbin in reply to drsamherman. | May 27, 2021 at 11:58 am

    Defamation is not hard to prove if all the essential elements of defamation are in place. Take away the racists element for a second. If the employer fired her and publicly accused her of committing a crime like making a false police report, and then those charges are dismissed, the employer made a publicly false statement about her, her firing caused her economic damage, and her inability to gain meaningful employment thereafter due to this false and defamatory public statement caused her harm. This is all actionable.

    If you employ people and need to let them go for any reason, simply state the employee is no longer an employee, or risk a defamation lawsuit and paying out money to either Plaintiff or you attorney who are itching to buy that new Lamborghini.

    It’s not worth the risk, but her employer would rather pose in woke glory. OK, they got their advertisement and affirmation from the mob. Now its time to pay the bill, especially after they ruined and destroyed this person beyond what fair justice would demand, and for the purulent self-serving purposes.

    I dislike cruel people. I dislike like them so much, more than I dislike this women and her stupid views of the world, and while I do think her life view would incline her to similar cruelty to others, she has not been in a position to exercise such cruelty.

    Also, if we can get the woke to fight the woke and leave the rest of us alone, I am very happy to facilitate. .

    artichoke in reply to drsamherman. | May 27, 2021 at 3:20 pm

    Every civil suit can be seen as going for a settlement. And even without the wrongful termination, she has the defamation charge doesn’t she? Defamation suits often seem to succeed.

      Brave Sir Robbin in reply to artichoke. | May 27, 2021 at 4:59 pm

      The wrongful dismissal suite, if it survives summary, will grant her a lot of leeway for discovery which would be obnoxious and potentially embarrassing to Defendant.

Just another virtue-less corporation seeking stature by virtue signalling.

henrybowman | May 27, 2021 at 12:53 pm

My only observation is that here in America, as much good law is made on the backs of bad people (e.g., Miranda) as bad law made on the backs of good people (e.g., pretty much any law named after a kid victim). If somebody on Wall Street has to pay a hefty settlement for unnecessarily bending the knee to woke culture, who they might have to pay it to is a second-order concern to me, especially if the backlash will rebound onto an actual liberal racist.

    Danny in reply to henrybowman. | May 27, 2021 at 2:16 pm

    She can’t prove her boss lied (even if she could prove he said something untrue which is opinion in this case) and is highly unlikely to have a wrongful termination suit either, you are hoping in vain.

texansamurai | May 27, 2021 at 2:16 pm

have had many employees like this woman–a bit high-maintenance but if skilled at their position, you just deal with it and go on–am not a damned shrink

believe the real culprit here is the guy–this is apparently some little power/control/shaming game he plays to amuse himself–so you go birdwatching and just happen to take along tainted treats to lure animals(and particularly those belonging to single women)away from their owners and then jack with the owners?–come on

small wonder she felt threatened–believe, based on the unedited video version, she was certainly justified–not forgiving her as she was obviously committing the egregious offense of letting her small dog walk without a leash, but this guy’s a squirrell–not unreasonable to infer that if he’d harm/kill her dog, he might harm her too

firing her for it?– after some “investigation?”–come on

“Racism” is not a crime.

I watched the videos at the time and there is NO DOUBT that Christian Cooper made threats. He menaced her and pulled what he said were dog treats out of his pocket – they could have been laced with strichnine. Ms. Cooper most definitely has a case against her employer, who reacted to Twitter. Cell phones with cameras should be outlawed. They’re causing constant problems, as in the case of Derek Chauvin. Photographs DO lie and so do videos. I hope she wins millions. Most likely, Franklin Templeton will settle. By the way, Ms. Cooper is Canadian.

Anacleto Mitraglia | May 28, 2021 at 4:28 am

I see she was also trying to Epstein her dog, the poor beast.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend