Cooper v. Xerox Corp.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[n]othing in these paragraphs [in the plaintiffs EEOC charge] suggests that Cooper thought he was being retaliated against or even provides any factual basis to infer an alleged retaliation”
• declining to dismiss hostile environment claim on exhaustion grounds where substantial discovery had taken place on the issue, case was three years old, and claim was pleaded in original complaint
• charge of racial discrimination does not support claim for hostile work environment or harassment
• “[MJerely checking a box, or failing to check a box does not necessarily control the scope of the charge. The more critical analysis is whether there is any explanation or description supporting a particular claim.”
• “Moreover, even if it were considered part of the charge, it is well-settled that merely checking a box, or failing to check a box does not necessarily control the scope of the charge.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).