The component is not available at this moment. Please contact the site administrator.
by Erika M. Barbara, J.D.; Senior Employment Law Counsel, CalChamber
Generally, race discrimination involves treating an applicant or employee unfavorably because they are of a certain race, while race-based harassment is unwanted and unwelcome conduct directed at an individual because of their race. Unlawful harassment can be based on a series or pattern of incidents or even a single incident if it is sufficiently severe. But what about conduct that is directed at a certain race generally, as opposed to the individual specifically?
In a recent decision, a federal district court in California held that a former university lecturer’s race discrimination and harassment claims may proceed to trial even though much of the alleged conduct was not directed specifically at him (Cook v. Bd. of Trs. of California State Univ., et al, No. 2:23-CV-00843-DJC-CKD, (E.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2025)).
Booker Cook, an African American man in his 70s, was a lecturer in the Ethnic Studies Department at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS). During his employment, Cook made an internal complaint that another professor in the department, Elvia Ramirez, discriminated against him based on race and age.
Cook claimed that Ramirez engaged in race- and age-related conduct, including:
After Cook complained about Ramirez, he applied for a faculty position. Cook alleged that after Ramirez learned he was seeking the position, she requested — and was granted — a spot on the hiring committee. Though at least one member of the committee recommended to interview Cook, Ramirez did not, and ultimately, Cook was not interviewed. Cook alleged that Ramirez joined the hiring committee to prevent him from being hired for the position.
Cook sued CSUS and Ramirez, alleging claims that included:
CSUS and Ramirez filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to find that Cook could not establish any of his claims and dismiss the case.
To decide the motion, the court looked at both parties’ evidence to assess whether the claims could proceed to a jury — or if the claims should be dismissed. The court found that some of Cook’s claims could proceed, including his claims for race discrimination, harassment and retaliation, but dismissed other claims.
Cook’s race discrimination claim was based on his allegation that he was not offered an interview for the faculty position because of his race. At the summary judgment stage, a plaintiff alleging a race discrimination claim must establish a prima facie case, which can include presenting “evidence that gives rise to an inference of unlawful discrimination.”
To do so, Cook presented evidence of Ramirez’s race-related conduct towards him and African Americans in general. He also argued that given her alleged conduct, Ramirez’s presence on the hiring committee indicated a discriminatory motive behind the decision not to offer him an interview.
The court agreed, holding that evidence of Ramirez’s conduct and presence on the hiring committee created a “triable issue of fact” on whether a discriminatory motive was behind the decision not to interview Cook for the faculty position. In this holding, the court emphasized that the fact that CSUS hired other African American employees for the faculty position does not preclude Cook’s discrimination claim. Under Title VII, employers may not discriminate against individuals within a protected class, even if they treat other members of that class favorably.
Although CSUS argued that it had a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not selecting Cook for an interview — he didn’t have a doctorate or peer-reviewed publications or presentations — the court found sufficient evidence to support the conclusion that the reason was actually pretext for discrimination. Specifically, Cook was qualified for the position, at least one member of the hiring committee wanted to interview Cook and Ramirez allegedly stated she was the only committee member that didn’t want to do so.
Cook also alleged a claim for race-based harassment based on Ramirez’s conduct, which included conduct personally targeting Cook — such as closing her door when he was around and making a comment about him being an “old black man” — as well as comments disparaging African Americans in general, including regularly asking “[w]hy do we keep hiring all these Black people?”
The court found that Cook presented sufficient evidence of conduct that a reasonable jury could conclude was pervasive enough to create a hostile work environment — even though not all the conduct was directed at him. That’s because, as the court noted, “hostile workplace claims can be premised on general race-related comments and actions that are not specifically targeted toward a particular individual.” Thus, Ramirez’s conduct towards African Americans in general could create a hostile work environment for Cook specifically.
The court also allowed Cook’s retaliation claim to proceed. The evidence suggested that Ramirez knew of Cook’s complaint about her and joined the hiring committee to block him from being hired. That, the court found, was enough to let a jury decide whether Cook was being retaliated against for his complaint.
The court dismissed Cook’s age discrimination and harassment claims because the claims were not supported by the evidence. Cook identified only two isolated age-related comments, which the court found were not severe enough to support his claims.
Although a jury will decide Cook’s race discrimination, harassment and retaliation claims, this case offers employers some important takeaways:
January 15, 2026
January 15, 2026
November 13, 2025
September 18, 2025