The California Civil Rights Department (CRD) on Monday voluntarily dismissed its case against Sundar Iyer and Ramana Kompella, two Indian-American engineers at Cisco Systems, who faced allegations of caste-based discrimination.

A mediation conference between Cisco and the CRD is still set for May 2.

Filed nearly three years ago, CRD’s legal action made global headlines, with false claims about the Hindu religion and xenophobic depictions of people of Indian origin, eliciting widespread outrage in the Indian and Hindu-American communities.

 “Two Indian-Americans endured a nearly three-year nightmare of unending investigations, a brutal online witch hunt, and a presumption of guilt in the media after the CRD sullied their reputation alleging that they engaged in discrimination based on caste,” said Suhag Shukla, executive director of Hindu American Foundation (HAF).

The dismissal comes just a few months after the Hindu American Foundation filed a Section 1983 claim in US District Court asserting that CRD’s case against Cisco and the engineers infringed on the civil rights of Hindus living in California by unconstitutionally and falsely asserting that Hinduism mandates caste discrimination. HAF’s filing took no position on the facts of the case.

Sources close to the CRD case revealed that HAF’s federal civil rights claim may have played a critical role in kick starting the case dismissal. The CRD’s lead attorney pursuing the Cisco case was fired over another case, HAF’s federal claim was filed, and both the constitutional issues raised by the manner in which CRD pursued its case against Cisco and the fabrication of evidence against the engineers became increasingly clear. 

According to court filings, Iyer, the CEO of the division, was accused of harassment on the basis of caste despite evidence that he actively recruited “John Doe,” who self-identifies as Dalit and on whose behalf CRD filed suit, and offered Doe a generous starting package with stock grants valued in the millions.

In a statement, HAF claimed that the same court documents demonstrated that Iyer also employed at least one other self-described Dalit who held one of the division's three senior roles. The other two leadership positions, including the one for which John Doe claimed discrimination, were also made available to this person before Doe filed his complaint, according to HAF.

“This trial presents a cautionary tale of the legal morass that awaits Indians, Hindus and all South Asians if the state of California adopts a policy that applies to only South Asians and institutionalised false and negative claims that stigmatise our community,” said Samir Kalra, HAF’s California based managing director.

“If you want to know why we’re opposed to ethnically profiling South Asians with the creation of caste as a stand-alone category, this case launched by the CRD is a brutal illustration of a fate that can befall any South Asian working in the state,” he added.

The legal experts for HAF observed that current laws and classifications like national origin, ethnicity, or lineage are the best course of action for claims of caste or other intracommunity discrimination.

Image source: Unsplash