Booker Cook is an African American man in his seventies who worked as a lecturer at a California University (University) in the Ethnic Studies Department. Early in his employment, Cook perceived hostility from Elvia Ramirez, a Chicanx/Latinx Studies professor, whom he described as acting “cold and cruel” and failing to welcome him. Cook alleged that Ramirez frequently closed her office door when African American colleagues, including Cook, were present—a claim partially corroborated by Ramirez’s former assistant.
In 2018, Cook claimed to have overheard Ramirez questioning why the department had hired “that old Black man” to lecture, suggesting that he did not represent the student body. Cook also alleged that Ramirez routinely made derogatory comments about Black faculty and the Pan-African Studies Program during faculty meetings, including repeatedly asking, “[w]hy do we keep hiring all these Black people?” and mischaracterizing African American staff hires as solely Pan-African Studies hires.
In November 2020, Cook filed an internal complaint with the University’s Office of Equal Opportunity alleging race and age discrimination. In 2021, he applied for a newly created tenure-track faculty position in Pan-African Studies, created in response to new educational requirements under AB 1460. A five-person hiring committee was formed; Ramirez was added to the committee after another member withdrew.
Each committee member was asked to create a “top list” of candidates to interview. Cook applied but was not selected for an interview. Notably, all applicants, including those who advanced, were African American. Two candidates, both African American, were ultimately hired. Cook alleged that Ramirez intentionally excluded him from her top list to prevent his selection. Other committee members did rank Cook among their top choices.
Cook filed suit in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. His claims included racial discrimination and harassment under Title VII and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), age discrimination and harassment under FEHA, and retaliation under FEHA.
Cook argued that Ramirez’s conduct—disparaging comments, discriminatory assumptions, and opposition to hiring African Americans—demonstrated racial animus that contributed to his exclusion from the tenure-track position and created a hostile work environment. He also argued that Ramirez retaliated against him for filing internal complaints.
Defendants contended that Cook could not establish a prima facie case of race or age discrimination because the successful candidates were also African American, and there was no evidence of age-based animus. They asserted that Cook was not selected for interview based on his academic qualifications, specifically his lack of a doctorate and peer-reviewed publications. They further argued that any harassment was not sufficiently severe or pervasive to constitute a hostile work environment.
Racial Discrimination
In racial discrimination cases under Title VII and FEHA, courts most commonly employ the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting framework under which the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination then the defendant may show that the action was taken for a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason, and then the plaintiff may rebut the defendant’s evidence by showing the reasons offered by the defendant are a pretext for discrimination. This prima facie case is typically satisfied, and the inference of unlawful discrimination is established when a plaintiff shows: (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the position; (3) he was subject to an adverse employment action; and (4) similarly situated individuals outside his protected class were treated more favorably.
The Court acknowledged that Cook could not meet this standard because all applicants were African American. However, it applied Ninth Circuit precedent allowing a plaintiff to establish an inference of discrimination without rigidly satisfying all four elements. The Court found that Cook presented enough evidence—particularly Ramirez’s alleged racially hostile remarks and her singular decision to exclude him from the top candidate list—to allow a jury to reasonably infer racial animus played a role. Summary judgment on Cook’s race discrimination claim was therefore denied.
Racial Harassment
Similarly, the Court found triable issues of fact regarding Cook’s racial harassment claim.
To prevail on a hostile workplace claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he was subjected to verbal or physical conduct of a racial nature; (2) that the conduct was unwelcome; and (3) that the conduct was sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the plaintiff’s employment and create an abusive work environment.
Although Ramirez’s conduct was arguably less severe than in some other cases, the Court noted that repeated negative statements about African Americans, differential treatment in faculty meetings, and racially derogatory remarks could, if proven, be sufficient for a jury to find an abusive work environment.
Age Discrimination and Harassment
The Court granted summary judgment on Cook’s age claims. It found that the only age-related comment—a 2018 remark by Ramirez referring to Cook as “that old Black man”—was isolated, stale, and insufficiently severe to support a harassment claim. Further, Cook provided no evidence that younger candidates were treated more favorably in the hiring process.
Retaliation
The Court denied summary judgment on Cook’s FEHA retaliation claim. To establish a prima facie case for retaliation under FEHA, a plaintiff must establish that (1) he was engaging in a protected activity, (2) the employer subjected him to an adverse employment action, and (3) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the employer’s action. Here, the Court held that factual disputes existed over whether Ramirez knew about Cook’s prior complaints and whether she acted with retaliatory intent in excluding him from her top candidate list. Ramirez’s statement during the Pan-African Studies hiring investigation that she was being “attacked again” could reasonably be interpreted by a jury as evidence of retaliatory animus.
The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Cook’s race discrimination, race harassment, retaliation, and related failure-to-prevent claims will proceed to trial. However, his age discrimination, age harassment, and negligent supervision claims were dismissed.
Cook v. Board of Trustees of California State University (E.D. Cal. Apr. 17, 2025) 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70176.
Note: While the successful candidates in this case were also African American, the case is a reminder that discriminatory intent can still be inferred from biased statements or conduct.