07 August 2013

Pin It

In depth Discrimination class against suit filed against INFOSYS by Brenda Koehler plaintiff

In depth Discrimination class against suit filed against  INFOSYS by  Brenda Koehler plaintiff


INFOSYS LIMITED     - Defendant.          
Trial by jury demanded.


Plaintiff Brenda Koehler (“Ms. Koehler” or “Plaintiff”), through her attorneys, brings this
action  in  her  individual  capacity  and  on  behalf  of  a  class  of  similarly  situated  individuals  to remedy  broad,  ongoing  national  origin  discrimination  by  Defendant  Infosys  technologies
Limited Incorporated, d/b/a Infosys Limited (“Infosys”), and alleges as follows:


Infosys has engaged in systematic, company-wide discrimination against
individuals based upon their national origin.    Specifically, Infosys has discriminated against
individuals  who  are  not  of  South  Asian  (including  but  not  necessarily  limited  to  India,  Nepal, Bangladesh) descent.  Infosys discriminates against these individuals through disparate treatment in hiring and disparate impact in hiring in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq. (“Title VII”).

Infosys’s discrimination is stunning in its scope and effect.  Infosys employs more
than  15,000  individuals  in  the  United  States  and  approximately  90  percent  of  these  employees are of South Asian descent (including individuals of Indian, Nepalese, and Bangladeshi descent).
Infosys  has  reached  this  grossly  disproportionate  workforce  by  directly  discriminating  against individuals  who  are  not  of  South  Asian  decent  in  hiring,  by  abusing  the  H-1B  visa  process  to bring  workers  of  South  Asian  descent  into  the  country  rather  than  hiring  qualified  individuals already in the United States, and by abusing the B-1 visa system to bring workers of South Asian descent into the United States to perform work not allowed by their visa status rather than hiring individuals already in the United States to perform the work.

Plaintiff Koehler is a United States citizen, born in the United States and not of Indian or
South Asian descent, who applied for a position at Infosys.   Ms. Koehler has advanced college
education, training, and job experience in information technology (IT), met the requirements for
the  job  that  were  posted  by  Infosys,  and  was,  therefore,  qualified  for  the  position  to  which  she applied.    Infosys discriminated against Ms.  Koehler, choosing to hire an individual of South Asian descent for the position.

Infosys’s discrimination as set out in this Complaint is continuing in nature.
Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of herself and the class of similarly situated individuals, declaratory and
injunctive relief, compensatory, nominal, and punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and
expenses to redress Infosys’s pervasive pattern and practice of discriminatory employment
policies, practices, and procedures.

The Parties

5.  Plaintiff Brenda Koehler is a citizen of the United States of America, born in the
United States, and of American national origin and ancestry.  Plaintiff was at all material times to
this cause of action a resident of the State of Wisconsin, and a resident of the United States.  As
set forth more fully below, Plaintiff has advanced college education, training, and job experience
in Information Technology (IT) and computer work.  Plaintiff applied and interviewed for an IT
job with Infosys for which she was qualified, and Infosys denied her that job opportunity.
6.  Defendant Infosys (NASDAQ:  INFY), headquartered in Bangalore, India, is a
large company, which, according to the company’s website is “a global leader in consulting,
technology and outsourcing with revenues of US$ 7.075 billion (LTM Q1 FY13).”  Infosys has
approximately  130,000  employees  worldwide,  and  approximately  15,000  employees  in  the
United States.    Infosys’s clients in the U.S.  include major corporations.    Infosys regularly
transacts business in this District.

7.  At all times relevant to this action, Infosys was and is an “employer” as defined
by Title VII.

Jurisdiction and Venue

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and Title
VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e)-5(f), et seq., as amended, to redress and
employment practices of Defendants in violation of Title VII.

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  § 1332 as the
matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is
between citizens of different states (or between a citizen of a state and foreign corporation).

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) as this
matter is a class action with an amount in controversy of greater than $5 million and involves at
least  one  class  member  who  is  a  citizen  of  a  state  and  is  brought  against  a  corporation  that  is from a different state or a foreign state.

11.  Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Wisconsin under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)-Case 2:13-
(c)  and 42 U.S.C.  § 200e-5(f)(3)  because  a  substantial  portion  of  the  complained  of  activities herein occurred in this District, Defendant conducts business in this District, and Plaintiff would have been employed in this District.

Plaintiff has exhausted her administrative remedies and complied with the
statutory prerequisites of filing a Title VII complaint by filing charges with the Wisconsin Equal
Rights Division, alleging the discrimination complained of herein.   That complaint was cross-filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”).  The EEOC
issued a Notice of Right To Sue on May 6, 2013.

Factual Allegations

I.  Individual Allegations

Ms.  Koehler is an experienced information technology professional with
considerable academic and professional experience.  Ms. Koehler has two degrees in Information
Systems,  including  a  Bachelor  of  Science  degree  from  Marquette  University  and  a  Master  of Science degree from the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 

Ms.  Koehler  has  been  employed  in  information  technology  positions  since  1996
in addition, has extensive experience in multiple fields.  Because of her training and experience, Ms. Koehler  has  a  wide  array  of  skills  that  include  expertise  with  operating  systems,  server management software, computer and server hardware, and IT consulting.

One area of expertise for Ms.  Koehler is VMware.    Ms.  Koehler is a VMware
Certified  Professional  and  has  had  prior  job  responsibilities  that  included  installing  and
supporting VMware applications.

16.  In April 2012, Ms. Koehler applied for a position as a “Lead VMware/Windows
Administrator” with Infosys. 

Ms.  Koehler  was  qualified  for  the  position  to  which  she  applied  as  she  has
extensive  experience  with  VMware  and  Windows  administrations  and  she  met  all  of  the
requirements set forth in the job posting.

On April 18, 2012, Ms.  Koehler received an electronic message from Infosys
acknowledging that her application had been received, that it was complete, and that it was under

On April 20, 2012, Ms.  Koehler received an electronic message from Infosys
informing  her  that  she  had  been  selected  for  a  telephonic  interview.    The message set the
interview to occur at 10 a.m.  eastern time on April 24, 2012.    The message stated that Infosys
would contact Ms. Koehler at the telephone number she had provided with her application.

On the morning of April 23, 2012, Ms.  Koehler received another electronic
message from Infosys confirming the telephonic interview would occur at 10 a.m.  eastern time
on April 24.    This message again confirmed that Infosys would contact Ms.  Koehler at her
telephone number.

On April 24, 2012, at approximately 9 a.m. eastern time, an Infosys representative
called Ms.  Koehler  at  the  telephone  number  she  had  provided  with  her  application.    The
representative stated that Infosys was “verifying” that Ms. Koehler would be present at that
telephone number for her interview that was to begin in approximately one hour.  Ms. Koehler
confirmed that she would be available at that telephone number for the interview.

At approximately 9:50 a.m.  eastern  time  –  10  minutes  before  the  interview  was
set to begin – Infosys sent Ms. Koehler an email.  That email abruptly changed the plan for the
interview,  instituting  a  dial-in  conference  call  (as  opposed  to  Infosys  calling  Ms.  Koehler
directly).  This was the first time that Infosys stated that Ms. Koehler would need to dial-in for
the interview.    Had Ms.  Koehler  not  been  monitoring  her  email,  she  likely  would  have  missed the telephonic interview in light of the last-minute change by Infosys.

Ms.  Koehler  dialed  into  the  conference  call  number  provided  to  her  at  the  last
minute and participated in the telephonic interview.    The interview lasted approximately 45
minutes.    While  the  job  posting  indicated  that  VMware  would  be  the  primary  role  for  the position, Infosys’s representatives spent a considerable amount of time asking about other
subjects, including DNS and Active Directory.    Ms.  Koehler has experience in those areas and
explained to Infosys’s representative that she had considerable experience with those areas,
including explaining the particular types of work, she had performed. 

Almost immediately after Ms.  Koehler explained her experience with Active
Directory, one of Infosys’s representatives sighed and stated (incorrectly) that Ms. Koehler had
no Active Directory experience.

Infosys did not hire Ms. Koehler.

Upon information and belief, after Ms. Koehler was rejected, Infosys continued to
interview candidates for the position for a period of nearly two months.

Infosys ultimately hired an individual of South Asian descent.    Specifically,
Infosys hired an individual of Bangladeshi national origin to fill the position.

II. Pattern And Practice Allegations

28.  Infosys’s discrimination against Ms. Koehler was not an isolated event; Infosys
has engaged in a systemic pattern and practice of discriminating against individuals who are not
of South Asian descent in hiring.

A.  Infosys’s Grossly Disproportional Workforce

Much of Infosys’s work involves providing technology support to other
companies  by,  among  other  things,  developing  and  supporting  technology  enterprise  systems.
To perform these tasks, Infosys employees will often spend considerable time in residence at a
client site.

Worldwide,  Infosys  has  over  130,000  employees  and  the  vast  majority  of  the
employees are Asian.  According to one former employee, 98 percent of Infosys’s employees are
Asian with less than 1 percent of its employees being Americans.

A substantial portion of Infosys’s employees is located in the United States.
Specifically,  Infosys  employs  approximately  15,000  employees  in  the  United  States,  including both locally hired employees and employees brought to the United States on work visas. 

 Infosys’s employees in the United States often travel from their homes to perform
work at client sites, often involving long-distance travel.  Because of this structure, Infosys can
hire employees nationwide and then staff projects by sending employees to the locations where
they are needed.

Infosys’s workforce in the United States is made up predominantly of individuals
of South Asian descent.  In response to a whistleblower complaint filed by one of its employees
–  Jay  Palmer  –  Infosys  retained  the  services  of  an  attorney  named  Mitch  Allen  to  conduct  an investigation.  Mr. Allen testified that there are fewer “Americans than Indians” employed by Infosys in the United States.

A former Infosys employee who worked in human resources – Linda Manning –
testified that approximately 90 percent of Infosys’s employees in the United States are foreign-national workers and the vast majority of those workers are of Indian national origin. 

The demographics among Infosys’s employees demonstrate a concerted effort to
discriminate  against  individuals  who  are  not  of  South  Asian  descent.    During the year 2010 Census,  all  Asian  subgroups  combined  made  up  4.8  percent  of  the  United  States  population.  Individuals  of  South  Asian  descent  made  up  between  1  and  2  percent  of  the  United  States population.     Among individuals with bachelor’s degrees – a requirement for many jobs at Infosys  –  individuals  of  South  Asian  descent  made  up  only  a  little  more  than  2  percent  of  the population.

Available  data  also  suggest  that  individuals  of  South  Asian  descent  make  up  a
very  small  portion  of  the  information  technology  professionals  in  the  United  States.    The
Association of Information Technology Professionals (“AITP”) – an IT professional organization
–  conducted  a  demographic  study  of  its  members  in  2007  and  found  that  only  2  percent  of  the membership was of Asian ethnic origin. 

Upon information and belief, the demographics of individuals who apply for a job
at Infosys, mirror those of the general population or of the demographics reported by the AITP. 

The gross disparity between the demographics of the applicant pool and Infosys’s
workforce  is  the  result  of  intentional  discrimination  against  individuals  who  are  not  of  South Asian descent.

B.  Infosys’s Reliance on Foreign Workers

Infosys has brought considerable numbers of foreign workers to the United States
to perform jobs for which there are qualified individuals of American national origin.

I.  Infosys’s Misuse of H-1B Visas

40.  Under  the  Immigration  and  Nationality  Act  (“INA”),  an  employer  may,  under
certain  circumstances,  employ  a  foreign  worker  in  certain  specialty  professions.    These
employees are referred to as H-1B employees because they are allowed to work pursuant to H-1B visas. 
Congress  strictly  limits  the  number  of  H-1B  employees  who  may  be  employed
nationwide during each year and generally puts a cap on the number of H-1B employees that a
single employer may hire.

The  H-1B  visa  program  is  intended  to  be  used  to  bring  foreign  workers  to  the
United States when there are insufficient “local” workers to perform the specialized jobs at issue.
The  program  is  expressly  not  intended  to  be  used  to  displace  qualified  American  workers  with cheaper foreign workers.

To  prevent  employers  from  using  the  H-1B  visa  process  to  cut  labor  costs  by
bringing in lower-cost foreign workers, the law requires the sponsoring employer to certify that it
will pay the foreign workers the higher of either the prevailing wage for the particular job in the
location  the  employee  will  work,  or  the  wages  paid  by  the  employer  to  any  non-immigrant performing the same job. 

An  employer  sponsoring  an  H-1B  employee  must  sign  a  Labor  Condition
Application attesting that the employee will be paid the required wage and that the use of the H-1B employee will not adversely affect the working conditions of any non-immigrant employees.

Infosys  has  a  long  history  of  abusing  the  H-1B  visa  system  by  hiring
disproportionate numbers of foreign workers – nearly all of them from South Asia – to perform
jobs for which there are qualified American workers available. 

In  fact,  Infosys  has  repeatedly  been  among  the  top  ten  H-1B  employers  in  the
United States, generally applying for thousands of new H-1B employees each year. 

Upon information and belief, Infosys was using the H-1B visa system as a means
to improperly pay low wages and import foreign workers who would displace American workers
at lower wages.

According to congressional testimony, in the year 2009, Infosys had an H-1B visa
crisis as it only had approximately 400 H-1B visas approved.

In  subsequent  years,  Infosys  has  again  had  thousands  of  H-1B  visa  applications
approved on an annual basis.

Infosys’s use and misuse of the H-1B visa system have contributed to its grossly
disproportionate workforce and have had a disparate impact on individuals of American national
origin, who by definition cannot be hired pursuant to these programs.

ii.  Infosys’s Misuse of B-1 Visas

Upon  information  and  belief,  Infosys  has  also  engaged  in  the  plainly  illegal
practice  of  obtaining  “business visitor” (B-1)  visas  for  its  foreign  workers  to  visit  the  United States and then used these individuals to perform improper long-term work in the United States.

The INA authorizes visitor visas for individuals “having a residence in a foreign
country  which  he  has  no  intention  of  abandoning  and  who  is  visiting  the  United  States
temporarily for business.”  8 U.S.C § 1101(a)(15)(B). 

The regulations make clear that an individual entering on a B-1 visa is allowed to
perform  only  very  limited  “business”  functions:    “The  term  ‘business,’  as  used  in  INA
101(a)(15)(B), refers to conventions, conferences, consultations and other legitimate activities of
a commercial or professional nature. It does not include local employment or labor for hire.”  22
CFR § 41.31(b)(1). 

A  company  may  send  a  foreign  worker  to  the  United  States  under  a  B-1  visa  to
perform  the  tasks  authorized  under  the  regulations  (e.g.,  attending  conferences,  training,  or consulting with colleagues), but the foreign worker may not come to the United States to perform longer-term work than these tasks.

According to the congressional testimony of an Infosys employee whistleblower,
Infosys abused the B-1 visa program by sending its employees from India to the United States to
perform  work  at  client  sites.    Infosys  used  B-1  visa  holders  because  they  could  be  paid
considerably lower wages than other workers including American-born workers.

At  some  point,  United  States consulate officials began to demand “welcome
letters” from Americans to confirm that Infosys’s B-1  visa  applicants  were  being  invited  to
perform  tasks  that  are  allowed  under  the  regulations.    Based  upon  the  testimony  of  the  Infosys whistleblower,  Infosys encouraged its employees to provide fraudulent “welcome letters” to facilitate the issuance of B-1 visas for foreign workers to come to the United States to work.


Infosys’s use and misuse of B-1 visas have had a disparate impact on individuals
of American national origin, who by definition will not be brought to the United States for work
under these programs.

iii.  Government and Congressional Investigations

Upon information and belief, Infosys Defendants’ practices relating to visas and
employment  of  foreign-national  workers  in  the  United  States  are  subject  to  extensive
investigations  by  multiple  Federal  Government  authorities,  including  for  potential  criminal

Congress also held hearings regarding Infosys’s misuse of the visa system and
heard the testimony Mr. Palmer – a company whistleblower – about Infosys’s practices. 

C.  Infosys’s “Affirmative Action” Programs

Apparently  recognizing  the  impropriety  of  over-reliance  on  foreign  workers,
Infosys has adopted an “affirmative action” program.
61.  Nandita Gurjar, who is the head of Infosys's Human Resources Department global
wide  and  also  serves  on  Infosys's  Executive  Council, testified in a deposition about Infosys’s
current recruitment “policy” as to job applicants for U.S.-based  jobs.    Gurjar  asserted  that
Infosys gives targets to job recruiters that “60  to  70  percent  of  all  the  hiring  should  be  local
hiring,” and clarified that this “local” requirement meant “Visa independent” workers.

Based  on  Gurjar’s  referenced  policy,  “local”  recruitment  is  not  necessarily
targeted to include fair or proportionate recruitment of persons of American origin and ancestry.
That is, the described “local” policy would still include significant recruitment of individuals of
South Asian descent who are now located in the United States.

 On information and belief, Infosys’s “local” recruitment policy continues to target
a significant number of individuals of South Asian descent who are either naturalized citizens or
green-card holding permanent residents. 

By way of example, Infosys hired a “local” person of Bangladeshi descent to fill
the job to which Ms. Koehler applied.

Infosys Technologies Limited itself has filed over 1,400 green card applications to
the  Federal  Government  between  2001-2012,  with  the  vast  majority  approved,  according  to  a website  with  public  information  about  immigration-  filings  (http://www.myvisajobs.com/Visa-Sponsor/Infosys-Technologies/263060.htm).

Upon  information  and  belief,  Infosys  also  employs  green-card  holding  workers
whose green cards were sponsored and procured by other employers not affiliated with Infosys.

 On information and belief, even if Infosys’s asserted “affirmative action” program
has been implemented as claimed, Infosys continues to hire a grossly disproportionate number of
individuals of South Asian descent to the detriment of individuals of American national origin. 
68.  Even  under  the  asserted  affirmative  action  policy,  Infosys  would  continue  to
target  hiring  30  to  40  percent  of  its  United  States  workforce  from  overseas,  a  policy  that  has  a disparate impact on individuals of American national origin who are by definition excluded from this portion of the workforce.

D.  Particular Instances of Discrimination

Numerous instances of discriminatory intent have come to light.

While working on the assignment at Vinings, Georgia in December 2008, Infosys
employee-whistleblower Jay Palmer claims that another Infosys employee wrote “Americans
cost $,” and “No Americans/Christians” on a whiteboard.

Palmer  claims  that  he  received  a  couple  of  telephone  calls  in  which  the  caller
asked, “Why are you doing this, you stupid American, we have been good to you.”   While
Palmer  does  not  know  who  made  these  calls,  they  came  after  he  began  to  complain  about Infosys’s misuse of the visa system.

On  February  28,  2011,  while  Palmer  was  working  on  a  project  in  Alpharetta,
Georgia, he claims that he found a typewritten note on his keyboard, and a Word document on
his computer, both of which stated, “Just leave your [sic] not wanted here hope your journey
brings you death stupid american.”

 On  April  21,  2011,  Palmer  claims  that  he  received  an  e-mail  on  his  personal  e-mail account stating, “if you make cause for us to sent [sic] back to india [sic] we will destroy
you and your family.”

 Palmer  claims  that  he  was  called  a  stupid  American  on  one  occasion  by  two
Infosys employees.

Mr.  Palmer  brought  these  issues  to  the  attention  of  Infosys,  but  Infosys  did  not
take significant steps to investigate or prevent future issues.

76.  During Mr. Palmer’s lawsuit, another employee also testified that Americans
generally were made to feel unwelcome at Infosys.

Class Action Allegations

Plaintiff  brings  this  Class  Action  pursuant  to  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure
23(a),  (b)(2),  (b)(3),  and  (c)(4),  seeking  injunctive  and  monetary  relief  for  the  systemic  pattern and practice of discriminatory hiring practices based upon applicants’ national origin.   This action is brought on behalf of the following class of individuals:
All  individuals  who  are  not  of  South  Asian  descent  who  applied  for  and  were
denied a job at Infosys in the United States from January 1, 2009 through the date
of final judgment in this action.

Members  of  the  class  are  so  numerous  and  geographically  dispersed  across  the
United  States  that  joinder  is  impracticable.    While  the  exact  number  of  class  members  is
unknown  to  Plaintiff,  it  is  believed  to  be  in  the  thousands.    Furthermore,  the  class  is  readily identifiable from information and records in possession of the Defendant.

There  are numerous questions of law and  fact  common to members of the class.
Among  the  common  questions  of  law  or  fact  are:
 (a)  whether  Infosys  has  intentionally
discriminated  against  individuals  who  are  not  of  South  Asian  descent  in  making  its  hiring decisions;

(b)  whether  Infosys  has  adopted  a  policy  or  practice  of  employing  large  numbers  of foreign-born  workers  within  the  United  States  via  H-1B  visas,  B-1  visas,  and/or  green-card worker  recruitment;

(c)  whether  Infosys  has  adopted  a  policy  or  practice  of  bringing  large numbers of foreign-born workers to the United States on B-1 visas to perform work illegally;
(d) whether Infosys’s policy and/or practice of relying on foreign-born workers was adopted for the purpose  of  discriminating  against  American-born  individuals  or  others  who  are  not  of  South Asian descent;

 (e) whether Infosys’s policy and/or practice of relying on foreign workers has had a disparate impact on American-born workers or others who are not of South Asian descent;

(f) whether the disparate impact of Infosys’s policies and  practices  is  justified  by  business  or commercial  necessity;

(g)  whether  there  were  alternative,  objective  means  for  recruiting  and hiring workers that would have had a less disparate impact on American-born workers or others who are not of South Asian descent than Infosys’s policy of relying upon large numbers of South
Asian-born  workers;

(h)  whether  Infosys  has  violated  Title  VII;  and  (i) whether  equitable  and injunctive relief is warranted for the Class.

Plaintiff’s claim is typical of the claims of the members of the class.  Plaintiff and
all  members  of  the  class  were  damaged  by  the  same  discriminatory  policies  and  procedures employed  by  Infosys,  i.e.,  they  were  denied  the  opportunity  to  fairly  compete  for  and  obtain employment with  Infosys.  Plaintiff and all members of the class have  suffered harm including lost compensation, wages, back pay, and employment benefits.

Plaintiff  will  fairly  and  adequately  protect  the  interest  of  other  class  members
because she has no interest that is antagonistic to or which conflicts with those of any other class
member,  and  Plaintiff  is  committed  to  the  vigorous  prosecution  of  this  action  and  has  retained competent counsel experienced in class litigation to represent her and the other members of the class. 

Plaintiff  and  the  Class  she  seeks  to  represent  have  suffered  substantial  losses  in
earnings and other employment benefits as a result of Infosys’s actions and this action.

Class  certification  is  appropriate  pursuant  to  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure
23(b)(2) because  Infosys has acted  and/or refused to act on  grounds  generally  applicable to the Class, making declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole.  The Class members are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief to end Infosys’s systematic, common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policies and/or practices.

Class  certification  is  appropriate  pursuant  to  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure
23(b)(3) for determination of the damages claims of individual class members because the issue
of liability is common to the class and the common nucleus of operative facts forms the central
issue which predominates over individual issues of proof.  The primary question common to the
class  is  whether  Infosys  has  discriminated  on  the  basis  of  national  origin  in  its  hiring.    This question is central to the case and predominates over individual issues among the members of the proposed class.  Infosys has engaged in a common course of conduct – discriminating in hiring, relying on H-1B employees, relying on B-1 visa holders, and/or relying on green-card holders – in a manner that has harmed all of the class members.   Class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) would  be  superior  to  other  methods  for  fair  and  efficient  resolution  of  the  issues  because certification  will  avoid  the  need  for  repeated  litigation  by  each  individual  class  member.    The instant case will be eminently manageable as a class action.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered  in  the  maintenance  of  this  action  that  would  preclude  its  maintenance  as  a  class action. 

Class  certification  is  appropriate  pursuant  to  Federal  Rule  of  Civil  Procedure
23(c)(4)  to litigate Plaintiff’s claims for prospective classwide compliance and affirmative
injunctive relief necessary to eliminate Infosys’s discrimination.  Certification under this rule is
also  appropriate  to  decide  whether  Infosys  has  adopted  a  systemic  pattern  and  practice  of
national origin discrimination in hiring. 


(Disparate Treatment)

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

 Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  Paragraphs  1  through  85  by  reference  as  if
fully set forth herein.

This claim is brought by Plaintiff on behalf of herself and the Class she seeks to

Throughout  the  class  liability  period,  Infosys  has  engaged  in  a  pattern  and
practice  of  discriminating  against  individuals  who  are  American-born  or  not  of  South  Asian national  origin  by:  
(a) filling  a  disproportionately  large  percentage  of  its  work  force  with individuals of South Asian national origin who are brought to the United States on either H-1B or  B-1  visas  even  when  there  are  qualified  individuals  available  in  the  United  States  and
(b) knowingly and intentionally favoring individuals who are of South Asian national origin even in “local” hiring. 

As a direct and proximate result of Infosys’s intentional discrimination, Plaintiff
and the members of the Class have been denied employment and denied the fair opportunity to
obtain employment with Infosys.
90.  Infosys’s actions constitute unlawful discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq.

(Disparate Impact)

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  Paragraphs  1  through  85  by  reference  as  if
fully set forth herein.

Throughout  the  class  liability  period,  Infosys  has  used  hiring  practices,  e.g.,  the
reliance upon H-1B, B-1, and/or green-card employees, that have had a disparate impact on the
basis  of  national  origin  (discriminating  against  workers  who  are  American-born  or  not  born  in South  Asia)  that  are  neither  job-related  for  the  positions  at  issue  nor  consistent  with  business necessity.

93.  The  foregoing  conduct  constitutes  unlawful  discrimination  in  violation  of  42
U.S.C. § 2000, et seq.

(Disparate Treatment)

(Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, et seq.)
(On Behalf of Plaintiff)

Plaintiff  re-alleges  and  incorporates  Paragraphs  1  through  85  by  reference  as  if
fully set forth herein
Infosys  intentionally  discriminated  against  Plaintiff  on  the  basis  of  her  national
origin  in  declining  to  hire  her  for  a  job  for  which  she  was  qualified.    Plaintiff  is  an  American-born  individual  and  a  member  of  a  protected  class,  she  was  qualified  for  the  position  to  which she applied, Infosys did not hire her, Infosys continued to interview individuals after refusing to hire  Plaintiff,  and  Infosys  ultimately  hired  an  individual  of  South  Asian  national  origin  for  the position to which Plaintiff applied. 

Infosys  did  not  have  any  non-discriminatory  basis  for  its  hiring  decision  and  its
assertion that Plaintiff was not qualified is pretext.
97.  The  foregoing  conduct  constitutes  unlawful  discrimination  in  violation  of  42
U.S.C. § 2000, et seq.


WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Brenda Koehler and the Class pray for relief as follows:

Certification  of  the  case  as  a  class  action  pursuant  to  Federal  Rule  of  Civil
Procedure 23;

Designation of Plaintiff Brenda Koehler as a representative of the Class;

Designation of Plaintiff’s counsel as Class counsel;

A declaratory judgment that the practices complained of herein are unlawful and
violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000, et seq.;

A  permanent  injunction  against  Infosys  and  its  officers,  agents,  successors,
employees, representatives, and any and all persons acting in concert with them, from engaging
in unlawful policies, practices, customs, and usages set forth herein;

Order Infosys to adopt a valid, non-discriminatory method for hiring;

Order  Infosys  to  post  notices  concerning  its  duty  to  refrain  from  discriminating
against employees on the basis of national origin or ancestry;

Order  Infosys to pay Plaintiff and the Class compensatory damages for the harm
they suffered as a result of Infosys’s violations of Title VII;

Award  Plaintiff  and  the  Class  prejudgment  interest  at  the  prevailing  rate  on  the
compensatory damages  as a result of  Infosys’s discriminating against  them in violation of Title

Award Plaintiff and the Class exemplary and punitive damages;

Award Plaintiff her reasonable attorney’s fees, expert witness fees, expenses, and
costs of this action and of prior administrative actions; and

Award  Plaintiff  and  the  Class  such  other  relief  as  this  Court  deems  just  and


Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Respectfully submitted this 1st  day of August, 2013.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

s/Michael F. Brown
Michael F. Brown
WI Bar No. 1041753
200 E. College Ave.
Appleton, WI  54912
920-831-0165 (fax)
Of Counsel (applications for admission forthcoming)

Robert A. Klinck
Daniel A. Kotchen
2300 M Street, NW
Suite 800
Washington, DC  20037
(202) 416-1848
(202) 280-1128 (fax)

Vonda K. Vandaveer
V.K. Vandaveer, P.L.L.C.
P.O. Box 27317
Washington, DC  20038-7317
202-521-0599 (fax)

 Reality views by sm –

Wednesday, August 07, 2013

Tags – Read Complete Infosys Brenda


MEcoy August 09, 2013  

any form of discrimination disgust me