The Civil Rights Department (CRD)’s a lawsuit against Cisco Systems in the summer of 2020, alleging caste discrimination, is a landmark case. The Cisco caste discrimination case is historic not only because it is the first such case in the United States, but because it has triggered anxiety among Hindu supremacists who uphold and reinforce caste practices.
Additionally, it has empowered anti-caste activists in the U.S. For example, the Ambedkar King Study Circle collected over 1,000 signatures to demand an end to caste-based discrimination in the U.S which was sent to top corporate houses in the USA. We also organised and curated a landmark set of testimonies that attested to the prevalence of caste discrimination in the South Asian diaspora.
Case that led to introduction of anti-caste policies in educational institutions
This case has also led to the introduction of anti-caste policies in educational institutions and sparked proposed legislation at both the city and state levels. It led the companies to include caste in their anti-discrimination policy guides including Cisco and Apple. Most importantly, it has made Americans confront the reality of caste, bringing the topic into public discourse.
Since its filing, the case has seen several significant rulings and orders. In October 2016, a Dalit employee, John Doe, had his caste revealed by his manager to the team. When he raised concerns, he allegedly faced retaliation, including isolation, loss of responsibilities, and denial of promotion.
After nearly four years of internal and external investigations, the dispute remained unresolved, prompting the Department to file a complaint on his behalf in June 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (a federal court), it was later refiled in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara (a state court) in October 2020.
Cisco Systems and two defendants, Sundar Iyer and Ramana Kompella, challenged the complaint, arguing in December 2020 that the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) could not initiate litigation and instead proposed arbitration directly with the victim. In February 2021, the court ruled in favor of the CRD, rejecting Cisco’s motion to compel arbitration.
The defendants appealed the ruling, but in August 2022, the appellate court upheld the lower court’s decision, maintaining the rejection of Cisco’s motion to compel arbitration.
The ruling stated, “the public policy of this state that it is necessary to protect and safeguard the right and opportunity of all persons to seek, obtain, and hold employment without discrimination or abridgment on account of race, religious creed, color, national origin, ancestry, or other protected characteristics. To implement that policy, the Legislature created the Department and gave it broad powers to investigate employment discrimination complaints and bring civil actions against violators when necessary.”
Intervention by the Hindu American Foundation
In January 2021, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF), a Hindu supremacist organisation, sought to intervene in the case, claiming that the CRD’s complaint wrongly linked caste discrimination with Hinduism. After Cisco lost the arbitration battle, HAF filed a lawsuit against the CRD in federal court in September 2022, alleging that the CRD’s complaint violated religious freedom. In August 2023, the federal court ruled against HAF but allowed them to amend their complaint.
The federal court ruled against the HAF said, “seeking to end caste-based discrimination at Cisco would not prevent or burden Hindu Americans from practising their religion”. In November 2023, the CRD amended its complaint, removing references to caste and Hinduism. Notably, this amendment was not based on any ruling against the CRD but was a strategic move to eliminate HAF’s involvement in the issue.
In January 2024, the court subsequently ruled against HAF’s intervention in the case. The core focus of the case remains whether caste discrimination occurred, not whether caste is inherently tied to Hinduism.
These rulings in this case are landmark decisions. They ensured the litigation would proceed rather than be forced into arbitration, and they rejected the arguments by Hindu supremacists that the case violated religious freedom and should be dismissed.
Disinformation strategy to manipulate public opinion
However, after facing a series of legal setbacks, Hindu supremacists resorted to a disinformation strategy to manipulate public opinion. They exaggerated minor developments, such as a small fine from the discovery process unrelated to the case’s merits, and a minor amendment that removed the link between caste and Hinduism, which is irrelevant to the case itself, portraying them as major victories. The propaganda has successfully led many to believe that the Cisco case has been dismissed.
To assess public awareness, AKSC conducted a brief survey, gathering responses from just over 100 participants. The results were surprising: 17% of respondents believed the case had been dismissed, 52% were unsure, and only 31% correctly stated that the case is still active. This survey was primarily conducted among AKSC newsletter subscribers, making the findings even more striking.
These results reaffirm our concern about the significant influence of Hindu supremacist propaganda. However, The CRD’s litigation is ongoing, with the next hearing scheduled for January 7, 2025, according to court documents. Notably, this misinformation has been published by reputable media outlets, which failed to cover significant rulings. I would like to explain with two concrete examples.
The first one is on February 6, 2024, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) issued a statement claiming, “California Civil Rights Department acknowledges caste is not an essential part of Hinduism in revised Cisco case brief.” This was published by the Press Trust of India (PTI) under the headline, “California govt. dept says caste not essential part of Hinduism, amends 2020 complaint.” However, the CRD had already dropped references to Hinduism and caste in December 2023.
So why did this news resurface in February 2024? The timing coincides with the court’s rejection of HAF’s motion to intervene as a defendant in the Cisco case on January 31, 2024. Shortly after, Ambedkar King Study Circle (AKSC) issued a statement on X, highlighting the court’s ruling “seeking to end caste-based discrimination at Cisco would not prevent or burden Hindu Americans from practising their religion.”
Federal court ruling against HAF
The CRD’s decision to remove the connection between Hinduism and caste resulted from a separate lawsuit. In Sep 2022, the HAF sued the CRD in federal court, arguing that the CRD should not file cases based on caste discrimination. In August 2023, a federal court ruled against HAF, clearing the way for CRD to continue with the Cisco case. As a result, CRD amended the complaint in November 2023 to remove references to Hinduism and caste.
HAF’s February 2024 statement was based on outdated developments, and PTI failed to report the significant court rulings and timelines, including the August 2023 judgement against HAF and their subsequent removal from the case.
The second issue concerns a news item published in PTI, titled “U.S. court penalises California State department in caste discrimination lawsuit.” The information originated from CasteFiles, a Hindu supremacist site known for selective reporting, disinformation and half-truths. On June 13, CasteFiles issued a press release claiming a “Landmark Judgment in Cisco Systems Caste Discrimination Case: A Victory for Corporate America and Hindu American Civil Rights.”
We should remember that PTI is a major news agency, and its reports are widely picked up by print and electronic media, which helped spread this news.
The actual issue was very trivial: Cisco requested several documents from the CRD, which the CRD delayed in providing. Cisco then filed a motion seeking the documents and requested a $12,400 penalty. The court granted one document, denied another, and reduced the penalty to $2,000.
However, the news article failed to mention these specifics, only referencing the $2,000 penalty while promoting other Hindu supremacist narratives. Once again, the media outlets failed to conduct due diligence. In fact, the penalty order was issued on May 2nd, while the news was published on June 20th. The reason for the sensation is that the CRD decided to pursue the case for a jury trial.
Owais M. Bari, a San Francisco based attorney who practices employment and general liability litigation commented on this issue, “Discovery allows parties to gather evidence and prepare for trial, which can lead to disputes over document production. Cisco and CRD had a disagreement, prompting Cisco to file a motion to compel document production and seek monetary sanctions. Under California law, if a motion to compel is granted, the filing party is entitled to attorney’s fees. The court’s decision to grant sanctions is a procedural matter and does not determine the merits of the case.”
The moot question is that which one is truly a landmark ruling? Is it the $2000 penalty related to the discovery process? Or the ruling rejects the defendants’ motion to compel arbitration, the rejection of the Hindu American Foundation’s (HAF) plea to intervene in the Cisco case, the federal court’s ruling against the Hindu supremacist organisation.
Indian media dominated by upper caste groups
This is not an isolated issue but part of a broader problem that reflects Indian media’s domination by the so-called upper caste groups. Oxfam India and Newslaundry conducted a study between April 2021 and March 2022, analysing over 20,000 magazine and newspaper articles, 2,075 prime-time debates featuring 76 anchors and 3,318 panelists, as well as 12 months of online news reports.
The study revealed that nearly 90% of leadership positions in print, TV, and digital media are dominated by upper caste groups, with no representation from oppressed caste communities in leadership roles at mainstream media outlets. Given this so-called upper caste dominance, media influence on public opinion regarding important litigation should not deter the pursuit of legal due process.
Caste discrimination in the U.S. is a growing issue, with the Cisco case being just one example, but the problem extends far beyond it. Hindu supremacist groups use the argument of religious freedom to block justice for those facing caste-based exclusion and discrimination, taking advantage of the lack of awareness about caste among non-South Asians.
By framing caste issues as attacks on Hinduism, they mislead the public and obstruct efforts to address this injustice. This tactic confuses the narrative, allowing these groups to protect caste hierarchies under the guise of defending religion. Individuals who practise caste in the U.S. may feel emboldened by these Hindu supremacist organisations.
Backed by significant financial resources, these groups often exaggerate minor legal victories while downplaying significant rulings, equating any criticism of caste to an attack on Hinduism in order to uphold their supremacist agenda.
Despite this, the Cisco caste discrimination case continues, and as it progresses, the media may shift from selective reporting to a more thorough examination, moving beyond the misleading narratives promoted by these groups.
Karthikeyan Shanmugam is an IT professional based in Silicon Valley, California, USA.
