Sir, I'm asking you to stop.
>> Please don't come close to me.
>> Sir, I'm asking you to stop recording me.
>> Please don't come close to me. >> Please take your phone off.
>> Please don't come close to me.
>> Then I'm taking a picture, I'm calling the cops.
Please call the cops.
>> I'm gonna tell them there's an African-American man threatening my life.
>> Please tell them whatever you like.
I'm being threatened by a man in please send the cops immediately.
>> Well, we've got an update on the woman in that video.
Central Park Karen, who called the cops and lied about a black man in Central Park
attacking her, when he simply and calmly asked her to put her dog on a leash.
Because they were in a portion of the park where there's bird watching.
He didn't want the birds to get harmed as a result of a dog that is not put on
a leash.
Now, with that said, she was later fired from her job as a result of
that false police report, as a result of that viral video, and
she decided to pursue a lawsuit against her employer as a result.
Well, it turns out that she has lost in that lawsuit.
The woman's name is Amy Cooper, and let's give you the details.
After that video went viral, Franklin Templeton, where she worked,
put out this statement.
In response to an incident involving an employee on May 25th,
Franklin Templeton issued the following statement.
We take these matters very seriously and we do not condone racism of any kind.
While we are in the process of investigating the situation,
the employee involved has been put on administrative leave.
So they looked into it and eventually decided to fire her.
Now, Amy Cooper later brought a lawsuit against the company,
alleging that she was illegally fired.
But a judge has ruled that her employer was justified in their decision.
US District Judge Ronnie Abrams rejected Amy Cooper's claims that her former
employer, Franklin Templeton,
defamed her when it repeatedly said the firm did not tolerate racism.
Abrams further said Amy Cooper had failed to prove that she was fired
due to her race or gender and without the kind of investigation that
had once been conducted on allegations of another employee's misconduct.
So, I got a little bit more on this case, but Cenk, you wanna jump in?
>> Yeah, some people really got a set on them.
So, she sued for gender and
race discrimination after doing that incredibly racist thing in Central Park.
And if you noticed, she changed the tone of her voice when she called the cops.
She's like, my God, help me.
And she said, quote, an African-American man is attacking me.
It's extra dangerous, cuz a black guys attacking me, and it's all on tape,
that she was planning to do it and she did do it.
She sues for racial discrimination, and the judge is like, no,
I don't think so, right?
And she's like, I'm so outraged that my company said they don't tolerate racism.
She sued, but that's an actual claim.
>> Well, she claims that they defamed her by implying that she's racist.
>> No, I get it, I get it.
But the statement of the company was, we don't tolerate racism.
She's like, how dare you?
[LAUGH] Hey, I get it, she thinks, you're implying I'm racist, but you are.
>> But that's the thing.
And look, we've experienced this with so many people throughout the years,
where they do or say racist things and then when they're dubbed racist,
they're genuinely shocked that you would label them that way.
And I don't know, I think that a lot of people in this country need
just a moment of self reflection.
Really consider what was going through your mind when you decided to
call the cops and
literally lie to the 911 operator about a black man at the park attacking you.
And think about what the responding officers would have in their minds
when they respond to that incident, right?
They're gonna think, there's a violent individual, we have to have our guards up.
And we've seen case after case of cops getting bad information,
showing up to the scene thinking that someone is armed when they're not,
thinking that someone is an imminent threat to them when they're not.
And people end up getting shot and killed, luckily in this case that didn't happen.
And you watched the entirety of the video, the guy was super calm the entire time.
He's just like, yoh, can you please put the dog on a leash,
which is a completely reasonable thing to ask for.
That is what the law entails.
You can't just have your dog running around without being on a leash.
And the other thing is, and I think I remember this story being updated with
the dog being taken away from her.
But the video is so difficult to watch,
because as she's doing something pretty terrible, she's also being super
physical and aggressive with the dog in ways that unacceptable.
>> Yeah.
>> I can't even watch it, I hate it.
So, I'm glad that Franklin Templeton fought it all the way,
cuz the great majority of cases that are brought on sex and race,
things unfortunately are true on those grounds, and the companies did do it, etc.
But in a small minority of cases, people think, I could just sit on race and
gender, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter. In this case, I'm the racist,
I'm gonna sue you for racism anyway.
And then, well, they'll just give me a big settlement.
And apparently Franklin Templeton was like, no, we won't, you're on tape and
we're not playing around with you.
And they went all the way, and they won.
So, hey, look at that, the justice system worked.
>> Yes, just a few more things I wanna mention though.
So in her lawsuit as well, Cooper had argued that the company's statement
suggested that Franklin Templeton had access to undisclosed facts justifying
its position that were not clear from the viral video of the incident.
Abrams did not agree with that, the judge, he was like, no.
So the judge wrote that, nothing about defendant's May 26 Statement suggested
that the opinions contained therein rested on facts undisclosed to the audience.
The contents of the viral video,
as well as the dialogue surrounding it both in the media and on social media,
were already matters of public knowledge, the judge said.
Rendering the defendant's statements in actionable as pure opinion.
Look, that video, I'm sure was incredibly embarrassing for
her, time to get to the point of self reflection.
Don't make the situation needlessly worse, both financially for you and in terms of
your reputation, by suing the company that fired you on decent grounds, honestly.
>> Yeah, my last thing is that, I think sometimes we're too harsh on the Karens,
and I think that you can get to redemption, okay.
And we don't have to have a punishment that lasts for their entire lives.
And it depends, it depends on the context, depends on what they did, etc.
In this case there's no redemption at all.
She wanted to get paid for what happened.
And so she's learned nothing, etc.
I don't need to do anything with her life, she's a private citizen.
Let her just live her life, okay?
But this was brazen.
So I'm thrilled that she lost decisively about it.