Cooper v. American University, Civil Action No. 2018-1970

Background

Cooper, an African American male, was hired by American University (AU) as a Police Dispatcher on January 4, 2016 and agreed to follow AU personnel and anti‑discrimination policies.
In May–June 2017 multiple lifeguards and pool patrons complained that Cooper made inappropriate/sexual comments and used a false name/alias while at the Reeves Aquatics Center.
AU HR (Employee Relations) investigated: HR interviewed Cooper, the complainant, other lifeguards and patrons, and obtained written statements from five witnesses describing a pattern of inappropriate behavior stretching to 2016.
Cooper was ordered not to use the pool, placed on paid administrative leave, and, after HR recommended termination for a Level III policy violation (sexual advances, false identity, undermining his role as a public‑safety employee), was fired effective July 28, 2017.
Cooper sued alleging Title VII race- and sex‑based employment discrimination; AU moved for summary judgment. The court granted AU’s motion and dismissed the remaining Title VII claim.

Issues

Issue	Cooper's Argument	AU's Argument	Held
Whether AU’s stated nondiscriminatory reasons for termination are pretext for Title VII discrimination	Cooper relies on comparator evidence (other employees received lesser discipline) and alleged investigatory irregularities to show pretext	AU contends it conducted a proper HR investigation, relied on corroborating witness statements, and terminated Cooper for serious misconduct, not race or sex	Court: No genuine dispute of material fact; AU articulated legitimate reasons and Cooper failed to show pretext; summary judgment for AU
Whether the proffered comparators are sufficiently similar to show discriminatory treatment	Cooper points to three AU employees (two white women, one white man) allegedly disciplined less severely	AU shows differences in jobs, supervisors, offenses, and investigatory involvement; some comparator evidence is hearsay or factually dissimilar	Court: Comparators not similarly situated as a matter of law; comparator evidence fails to show pretext
Whether flaws in AU’s investigation (scope, supervisors consulted) render the investigation so unfair as to permit an inference of discrimination	Cooper asserts HR deviated from practice by not consulting his direct supervisor and that investigation was flawed	AU shows the investigation followed standard HR practice, Title IX coordinator was informed, and HR routinely handled discipline decisions without supervisor input	Court: Investigation was not so flawed or unfair to permit an inference of discrimination; no pretext established
Whether alleged failure to follow Title IX procedures undermines AU’s defenses	Cooper argues Title IX procedural lapses show impermissible motive or defective process	AU and the court note Title VII provides the exclusive remedy for employment discrimination claims here and Title IX procedural arguments do not create Title VII pretext	Court: Title IX procedural arguments do not save Cooper’s Title VII claim; argument fails as a matter of law

Key Cases Cited

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and movant’s burden)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (genuine‑issue / jury standard at summary judgment)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (burden‑shifting framework for discrimination claims)
Texas Dep’t of Cmty. Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248 (prima facie burden and employer’s burden to articulate nondiscriminatory reason)
Burley v. Nat’l Passenger R.R. Corp., 801 F.3d 290 (investigation‑flaw may show pretext when investigation is inexplicably unfair)
Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843 (investigatory defects can support inference of pretext)
Royall v. Nat’l Ass’n of Letter Carriers, AFL‑CIO, 548 F.3d 137 (ways to prove pretext; employer’s factual belief must be reasonable)
Fischbach v. D.C. Dep’t of Corr., 86 F.3d 1180 (courts may not second‑guess employer’s personnel decisions absent discriminatory motive)