The Cisco Caste discrimination case

Update- It seems DFEH gave a right to sue letter to another South Indian who alleges he was terminated because he was a Kapu Naidu by a boss who was a Kamma Naidu. It seems, allowing Caste to be a criteria for Discrimination lawsuits means no Indian can be put in charge of any other Indian even if they belong to what appears to be the same caste! 

The Californian Department of Fair Employment and Housing is suing Cisco for the casteist behaviour of two of its employees. (update. The case collapsed. There was no casteist behaviour.)

 However, the following statement it makes is misleading.

Complainant Doe’s ancestry, national origin/ethnicity, and race/color is Dalit Indian. Doe has a darker complexion relative to other persons of non-Dalit Indian descent.

There is no connection between skin color and Caste. North Indians are fairer than South Indians. Some Dalits in Tamil Nadu are of Northern origin and have lighter skin than the indigenous High Castes. But some Punjabi Brahmins have darker skin than some 'Mazhabis'.

Doe’s religion is Hindu. As a Dalit, he also is known as being from the Untouchable or Scheduled Caste.

Sadly, Religion is irrelevant. Discrimination against Dalits exists even in Christianity- as Sujatha Gilda's book 'Ants among Elephants' records.

29. Doe has over 20 years of experience in the software development lifecycle process at startups and established companies. In or around September 2015, Iyer recruited and hired Doe as a Principal Engineer for Cisco because of his expertise and experience. As the head of the Cisco team, Iyer hired and supervised Doe, having the authority to control his day-to-day assignments, discipline, discharge, direct, and transfer Doe. Upon information and belief, Iyer is Brahmin.

Iyer and Doe attended the same IIT at the same time. This suggests that they knew each other or had friends in common. Iyer must have thought well of Doe or else he would not have hired him. The question is why did Doe's career not progress as well as might have been expected?

30. In or around October 2016, two of Doe’s colleagues told Doe that Iyer informed them that Doe was from the “Scheduled Caste” (Dalit) and enrolled in the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) through affirmative action. Iyer was aware of Doe’s caste because they attended IIT at the same time. 31. In or around November 1, 2016, Doe confronted Iyer about disclosing Doe’s caste to other Cisco employees. Iyer asked Doe who claimed he made such a comment. After Doe shared the names of his colleagues, Iyer denied the comment and stated Doe’s colleagues were not telling the truth. 32. In or around November 21, 2016, Doe contacted Cisco’s human resources (HR) and Employee Relations to file a discrimination complaint against Iyer. 33. Six days after Doe’s first contact with Cisco’s HR and employee relations, Iyer told Doe he was taking away Doe’s role as lead on two technologies. 34.

I think this is the reason DFEH took the case. First there is  a complaint and then there is retaliatory action.

On or around November 28, 2016, Iyer promoted two of Doe’s colleagues to head engineering roles, one of whom was Defendant Kompella. Kompella was made Head of Southbound Engineering. Upon information and belief, Kompella is Brahmin or at least of a higher caste than Dalit. With this new title, Defendant Kompella received a raise of approximately 15% or more. As the Head of Southbound Engineering, Kompella had the ability to direct the day-to-day assignments and recommend employment actions for those on his team, including Doe. 35. On or around November 28, 2016, Iyer also removed team members from the third technology Doe was working on and did not formally integrate the third technology into either team headed by the two new Heads of Engineering. As a result of these changes, Doe’s role was reduced to that of a system architect as an independent contributor, and he was isolated from all his colleagues. 36. On or around December 8, 2016, Doe submitted a written complaint about Iyer’s disclosure of Doe’s caste, Doe’s complaint to Iyer, and Iyer’s retaliatory employment actions, including the sudden changes to Doe’s job duties. He also complained that Iyer made discriminatory comments to a colleague and about a job applicant because of the applicant’s religion (Muslim).

Doe made a written complaint after retaliatory measures were taken against him. It is puzzling that Cisco took no action. Doe was an industry veteran. He had been hired as a Principal Engineer by Iyer himself. Either Iyer had hired a pal of his who wasn't up to the mark or else Doe was paying the price of standing up to his boss.

37. Cisco’s Employee Relations Manager, Brenda Davis, conducted the investigation into Doe’s December 2016 complaint. Davis’ internal investigation notes revealed that Iyer admitted that he told Doe’s colleagues that Doe was not on the “main list.” Among those from India, it is commonly known that students not on the main list are admitted to IIT through an affirmative action program designed for those from the “Scheduled Castes” or those outside the caste system. Therefore, stating that someone is not on the “main list” effectively reveals their caste.

No. Politically dominant 'Other Backward Castes' also have quotas. But this does not affect the quality of the students. They may be allowed to complete the course over a longer period but they still have to pass the same exams.

Despite this, Davis took no further action and failed to even contact relevant witnesses or Doe. 38. Cisco Employee Relations staff, including Davis, also indicated that caste discrimination was not unlawful. As a result, Davis did not recommend any corrective action against Iyer. Iyer also admitted that he made a joke about Doe’s co-worker’s religion and talked about an applicant’s Muslim related appearance. Still, Davis did not recommend any corrective action. On or around February 2, 2017, Davis closed her investigation finding all of Doe’s complaints were unsubstantiated. 39. Iyer’s retaliatory efforts continued. He further isolated Doe from the team when he disparaged Doe to other employees, misrepresented that Doe did not perform his job adequately, and told Doe’s team members that they should avoid working with him. 40. On or around March 2, 2017, Doe sought review of Davis’ investigation findings. After repeated attempts to have Cisco review Davis’ findings, HR official Tara Powell finally reopened the investigation on or around April 25, 2017. Powell re-interviewed one of the employees to whom Iyer The employee stated that he learned about Doe’s caste but refused to tell Powell how he knew, noting that he did not want to say anything about Iyer because they had known each other for a long time. He also stated that he thought Doe was being treated unfairly and that he was very technically able but was being excluded at work. Powell did not attempt to contact for an interview the other employee who witnessed Iyer’s disclosure of Doe’s caste. Two additional witnesses told Powell that they feared losing their jobs or otherwise being retaliated against for speaking out against Iyer. One of those employees also told Powell that he thought Doe was very competent and asked appropriate questions, but that Iyer was setting Doe up to push him out of the company. 41. Powell’s investigation also uncovered a spreadsheet that showed anticipated yearly raises, bonuses, and restricted stock unit awards that Iyer had promised Doe. These raises, bonuses, and awards never materialized when promised. But Powell also found that four out of the eight other team members received raises in or around October 2016. 42. In or around August 2017, Powell concluded she could not substantiate any caste-based or related discrimination or retaliation against Doe. Powell, however, determined that Iyer mocked another employee’s religion, and thus violated Cisco’s Code of Conduct. Still, no immediate corrective action was taken. 43. Despite Doe’s repeated attempts to bring the caste-based and related discrimination, harassment, and retaliation to Defendant Cisco’s attention in 2016 and 2017, Cisco failed to recognize casteism as a form of unlawful religion-, ancestry-, national origin/ethnicity-, and race/color-based discrimination or harassment under state or federal law and failed to conduct a thorough investigation. While the investigation confirmed Doe was increasingly isolated and treated unfairly by Iyer and Kompella, Cisco failed to take timely and appropriate corrective action. Moreover, Cisco’s training was deficient in that it did not adequately train managerial employees on workplace discrimination, harassment, and retaliation, nor did the company prevent, deter, remedy, or monitor casteism in its workforce.

It may well be that Americans might not understand 'casteism'. But surely Cisco's HR department would know that retaliation against an employee who has made a complaint is wrong?

44. On or around February 26, 2018, Kompella became the Interim Head of Engineering for Cisco’s team after Iyer stepped down. In his new role, Kompella supervised Doe and continued to -11- Cal. Dept. Fair Empl. & Hous. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al. Civil Rights Complaint – Employment Discrimination 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 discriminate, harass, and retaliate against Doe by, for example, giving him assignments that were impossible to complete under the circumstances. Kompella also began requiring Doe to submit weekly status reports to him and Senior Vice President/General Manager Tom Edsall. 45. On or around May 21, 2018, Rajeev Gupta took over from Kompella and became the Director of Engineering. In that role, Gupta supervised Doe. 46. Two months later, in or around July 2018, Doe applied for the position of Director of Research and Development Operations with Gupta. According to Gupta’s interview notes, he ranked Doe as “below average” in six out of eight categories and as “meeting requirements” in the remaining two categories. But Gupta’s assessment of Doe was improperly influenced by Iyer’s retaliatory employment actions. Gupta specifically cited Doe’s lead role being taken away and his job reduced to that of an independent contributor in November 2016. Gupta’s notes also reflected Iyer’s retaliatory criticisms about Doe’s work product, social skills, and insubordination. Doe did not get the position. 47. The effect of the unlawful employment practices complained of above was to deprive Doe of equal employment opportunities, and otherwise adversely affect his status as employees, because of religion, ancestry, national origin/ethnicity, and race/color. 48. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were intentional. 49. The unlawful employment practices complained of above were done with malice or with reckless indifference to Doe’s federally and state-protected civil rights

Gupta, presumably, is North Indian while Iyer and Kompella, presumably, are South Indian. Gupta may have thought their assessment of Doe was reliable. It may be that Iyer and Kompella are not 'casteist' themselves but that they took against Doe because he asserted himself. Iyer hired Doe. He must have thought he was good at his job. Why did Doe's career fail to develop? It may be that Iyer has evidence that Doe was not doing a good job. But why did he not supply that information to the H.R Department? American firms are notorious for their 'hire and fire' work culture. But, surely, a Manager who hires a dud has to take some responsibility?

Cisco seems to have swept things under the carpet. They are now paying a high price for this error. This case has made international head-lines.