In June 2020, the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) filed a lawsuit against Cisco Systems, alleging caste discrimination faced by a Dalit employee. The case was later moved to the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara. Hindu supremacist groups opposed legal protections against caste oppression, arguing that such protections constitute an abrogation of their religious rights and freedoms. This opposition culminated in a lawsuit filed by the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) – alleged to be a key node in the global Hindu supremacist movement – in US federal court against the CRD’s intervention.
The HAF’s lawsuit, initially filed in September 2022, suffered a defeat in August 2023 and was subsequently amended in September 2023 and again, in August 2024.
The case challenges the CRD on two key grounds.
First, it argues that the CRD’s lawsuit against Cisco for alleged caste discrimination infringes on the religious freedom of Hindu Americans, citing the original complaint’s linkage of caste to Hinduism despite the CRD subsequently removing that reference.
Second, the HAF seeks to prevent the CRD from filing future lawsuits addressing caste discrimination.
On November 15, the CRD in its response, requested the court to dismiss the case outright, without the need for an oral hearing, asserting that HAF’s lawsuit lacks any substantive merit.
The CRD’s complaint against Cisco does not infringe on religious freedom, rather, it upholds the rights of all individuals, including Hindu Americans, by safeguarding them against discrimination and harassment in the workplace. The CRD’s actions reflect its commitment to protecting the legal rights of Hindu Americans and ensuring fair treatment for all.
But let’s unpack the most dangerous allegation made against the CRD by the HAF: “Through this suit, HAF seeks to have this Court declare the CRD’s state suit against Cisco unconstitutional and enjoin the CRD from pursuing certain types of future employment discrimination actions.”
The CRD primarily challenged the HAF’s lawsuit by invoking the Younger abstention doctrine. Originating from the landmark Supreme Court case Younger v. Harris (1971), this principle upholds federalism by restricting federal court intervention in active state-initiated litigation, referred to as “State Action,” until the state proceedings are concluded. A critical aspect of the Younger abstention is that the case must qualify as a state action, and the parties involved in the state litigation cannot initiate separate litigation that could potentially influence the ongoing state case.
Also read: The Hindu Supremacist Disinformation Campaign Against the Caste Discrimination Litigation in US
The HAF argued that the CRD’s litigation against Cisco does not qualify as a state action, claiming instead that the CRD acted as a private attorney for the victim in the Cisco case. In its response, the HAF stated: “The CRD is simply acting as the attorney for the plaintiff in the State Action [i.e., the Cisco case in the California Superior Court], bringing claims he [the victim] could raise himself through a private attorney with no involvement from the State at all. It seeks remedies only between the parties, remedies that, again, the plaintiff himself could obtain without any involvement from the State.”
This argument attempts to undermine the CRD’s authority by framing its role as merely a substitute for private legal representation, rather than as a representative of broader public interest.
The plaintiffs further argued that even after the reference linking caste and Hinduism was removed in the amended complaint, it continued to adversely affect Sundar Iyer and Ramana Kompella who were originally defendants in the Cisco caste and later dismissed upon their request. Although they were dismissed from the case, their names remain in the complaint, and they were not given an opportunity to challenge the constitutionality of the case in state court.
The HAF stated that the state court ruled against its intervention in the ongoing proceedings. These points form the core of HAF’s argument.
The CRD responded that the HAF had the opportunity to appeal the ruling in the state court but chose not to pursue it.
Similarly, Sundar and Ramana filed motions to dismiss themselves from the case, citing Reno v. Baird (1998), which provided immunity for individual managers regarding discrimination claims under California law.
It is important to understand how California law addresses workplace discrimination and harassment, as well as the division of responsibilities between corporate employers and individual supervisors or managers. According to California law, discrimination typically arises from official employment actions, such as hiring, firing, and job assignments – activities that fall within a manager’s job scope. Harassment, however, pertains to actions outside a manager’s official duties, such as abusive or offensive behaviour, and can lead to personal liability for individual supervisors.
The Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) primarily aims to address systemic workplace discrimination by holding employers accountable for discriminatory environments. While managers are generally not held accountable for official employment decisions, they can be personally liable for behavior that constitutes harassment, as it exceeds the scope of their normal job functions.
The CRD pointed out that while Sundar and Ramana successfully filed motions for dismissal in the Cisco case, their names and actions remain in the complaint due to allegations of discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. Notably, they joined the federal lawsuit not just to seek relief from perceived slander but also to challenge the CRD’s lawsuit against Cisco by invoking the Equal Protection Clause. In its response, the CRD stated, “The fact remains that the crux of Mr. Iyer’s and Mr. Kompella’s alleged claims under the Equal Protection Clause as stated in the SAC is their disagreement with CRD’s charging decisions in the State Action.” The CRD argued that these claims are directly tied to the State Action, and as per the Younger abstention, they cannot initiate new litigation in federal court.
Also read: Details Revealed During Hindu American Foundation’s SLAPP Lawsuit Counter Org’s Previous Claims
In addressing HAF’s claim that the CRD acted as a private attorney in the Cisco case, the CRD clarified that this is a “fundamental misunderstanding of CRD’s role in the State Action.” Under California Government Code Section 12965, subdivision (a)(1), the CRD itself is the plaintiff and acts “in the public interest,” not as a private party as HAF contends. The CRD further emphasised, “In that role, CRD seeks more than just individual relief…Rather, the Department seeks declaratory and injunctive relief that will benefit all individuals at Cisco now or in the future to be free from similar discrimination. CRD is ‘the public arm of [FEHA’s] enforcement procedure,’ ‘acts independently when it sues for FEHA actions,’ and ‘can seek remedies beyond those brought by an employee.’”
The CRD affirmed its commitment to addressing systemic workplace discrimination by going beyond individual cases to pursue broad remedies that promote fairness and protect all employees from discriminatory practices, ultimately benefiting everyone at Cisco.
As part of the discovery process, the CRD requested internal communications in Cisco containing specific terms such as ‘caste’, ‘color’, ‘untouchable’, ‘outcaste’, ‘Dalit’, ‘Hindi’, ‘Hindu’, ‘brahmin’, ‘kshatriya’, ‘vaishya’ and ‘shudra’ to understand how caste operates with in the company. The scope of the request spanned data from January 2012, covering both the spin off company involved in the alleged discrimination and Cisco’s general HR communications and complaints.
The initial request, which included a broader list of 21 terms, yielded an overwhelming 348,000 documents or items. Cisco argued that reviewing these documents before handing them over would cost approximately $1.45 million. On November 15, 2024, the court narrowed the search criteria, instructing Cisco to share documents specifically tied to the aforementioned terms.
This ruling not only advances the Cisco case but also sets a precedent that could encourage corporations to adopt better policies to prevent and address caste-based discrimination and harassment. The wealth of information uncovered through this discovery process will likely play a critical role in the ongoing litigation.
With Hindu supremacists engaging in a widespread slanderous and disingenuous campaign against legal protections for the oppressed, and with the majority of dominant caste individuals yet to take a strong stand against caste discrimination, the situation remains challenging. The caste-oppressed continue to be vastly outnumbered in workplaces where hiring and firing decisions are predominantly controlled by dominant caste individuals. In such a landscape, workplace protection can only be ensured through the enforcement of laws.
Karthikeyan Shanmugam is an IT professional based in Silicon Valley, California, USA.