Eight months after a lawsuit was filed against Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for alleged discrimination and visa regulation violations, a New Jersey court has decided to dismiss one of the three claims made by the plaintiff, Shawn Katz. However, the other two claims will proceed.
Allegations of Discrimination: Former TCS Employee’s Legal Battle
In December 2022, TCS, India’s largest software exporter, was accused by Katz, a former employee, of having a systematic practice of discriminating against individuals who were not of South Asian or Indian descent. Katz claimed that this discrimination extended to various aspects of employment, including hiring, staffing, benching, termination, and promotions, and that this policy was enforced throughout the company’s hierarchy.
Katz, who worked at TCS for nine years before being laid off while on the bench, asserted that the company’s discrimination was pervasive and continuous. He alleged that it affected both non-South Asians and non-Indians within the company and job applicants who were disadvantaged in TCS’s hiring, staffing, promotion, and termination decisions. Furthermore, Katz contended that TCS aimed to maximize its benching, hiring, and termination practices to favor visa holders, particularly those with H-1B work visas in the United States, which are sponsored by the employer. He also claimed that TCS gave priority to visa holders for its positions.
Katz had filed a class action lawsuit, representing a group of individuals who had experienced similar forms of discrimination.
Discrimination Lawsuit Against TCS Under Scrutiny
The lawsuit brought forth allegations of disparate treatment based on race and unlawful employment practices rooted in race and national origin. Katz sought injunctive and declaratory relief, as well as damages. TCS responded by filing a motion to dismiss, which Katz opposed.
In the recent ruling by Justice Brian R. Martinotti of the New Jersey District Court, TCS argued that one of Katz’s disparate impact claims and claims for injunctive relief should be dismissed. The court concurred, stating that Katz had not established a prima facie case for a disparate impact claim under Title VII. However, the court recognized that the allegations appeared to involve disparate treatment, which is intentional discrimination, rather than disparate impact, which is unintentional discrimination.
The court emphasized that TCS’s policies, aimed at maximizing visa holders, who Katz alleged were predominantly South Asian, and prioritizing these visa holders for TCS positions, were not neutral policies because Katz claimed that TCS implemented them to favor South Asians and Indians.
Katz had also requested injunctive relief, which TCS initially contesteda, arguing that Katz was not seeking reinstatement or claiming harm caused by TCS’s actions. However, Katz amended his complaint to seek reinstatement and injunctive relief on behalf of the class, which the judge allowed to proceed.
Regarding the third charge, TCS’s motion to dismiss all claims related to discriminatory hiring or placement was denied.
In response to inquiries, TCS stated, “As this matter is currently before the courts, we are unable to provide further comment.”
