Karthikeyan Shanmugam 
In September 2022, the Hindu American Foundation (HAF) filed a lawsuit against the California Civil Rights Department (CRD) in a US federal court. Ongoing for over two years, the case is scheduled for its next and possibly final hearing on December 3. Unlike the Cisco case, this lawsuit has received limited media coverage in India and the US. This case not only connects to the Cisco lawsuit but also challenges the CRD’s legal authority to pursue caste discrimination cases.
The Cisco case
In June 2020, the CRD filed a lawsuit against Cisco Systems, alleging caste discrimination faced by a Dalit employee and later moved the superior court of California, Santa Clara.
Since this was a first-of-its-kind case in the US, where courts are unfamiliar with caste-based discrimination and lack precedents, the CRD clarified about caste in its filing, “As a strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy, India’s caste system defines a person’s status based on… the caste into which they are born – and will remain until death. At the bottom of the Indian hierarchy is the Dalit… who were traditionally subject to ‘untouchability’ practices which segregated them by social custom and legal mandate.”
This single reference to Hinduism in the complaint serves as a contextual explanation rather than an exhaustive analysis of caste and its origins.
In January 2021, the HAF filed a motion to intervene in the Cisco case on three main grounds.
First, the department’s linking of caste with Hinduism could lead employers to avoid hiring Hindus, fearing potential legal issues. Second, employees may object to reporting to or working alongside colleagues of different castes, burdening employers. Third, employers may feel compelled to inquire about South Asian employees’ religion, violating employees’ religious freedom, protected under the First Amendment, by pressuring them to disclose their beliefs.
The HAF sought to intervene in the case on behalf of all Hindus in the US, arguing on the basis of utopian tenets – truth, non-injury, compassion, equanimity, generosity and equal regard to honour the divine in all – rather than on evidence.
In March 2021, the court put the HAF’s intervention on hold since the Cisco case had undergone a stay in hearings, as the defendants appealed for direct arbitration with the victim, thereby removing the CRD from the case. It is important to note that in the Cisco case, the victim did not file the complaint; the CRD filed it on the victim’s behalf. In August 2022, the appellate court rejected arbitration in the Cisco case and ruled in favour of the CRD and hearings resumed.
Also read: The Hindu Supremacist Disinformation Campaign Against the Caste Discrimination Litigation in US
HAF’s legal battles with CRD
In September 2022, the HAF filed a new lawsuit against the CRD in a California district court on similar grounds as it filed in the superior court. After nearly a year of hearings, in August 2023, the federal court dismissed HAF’s lawsuit on two grounds.
First, the HAF cannot represent all Hindus in the US and thus lacks binding authority. Second, the CRD’s efforts to end caste-based discrimination would not prevent or burden Hindu Americans from practicing their religion. However, the court allowed the HAF the opportunity to amend its filing to address the binding authority issue.
After the HAF went down in flames in federal court in the first round, it continued to intervene in the Cisco case at the Santa Clara superior court, resulting in two parallel hearings: one in federal court, where the HAF sued the CRD over its caste discrimination case and another in superior court, where the HAF sought to intervene in the ongoing Cisco litigation.
In September 2023, the HAF filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC) along with HAF-affiliated and a few non-affiliated individuals, including three anonymous ones, rather than directly sue the department. Two former defendants in the Cisco caste discrimination case, who were dismissed in April 2023, had also joined.
In January 2024, the Santa Clara superior court dismissed the HAF’s intervention, concluding that “HAF’s complaint does not allege any facts showing that CRD coerced anyone into doing something inimical to their religious convictions or otherwise prevented them from being able to practice their religion.”
The court further clarified, “The point of the lawsuit is to prevent discrimination at Cisco based on caste. It is hard to see how such a case, even though it wrongfully ascribes the caste system to Hinduism, would result in the inability of Hindus to freely practice their religion.”
In May 2024, in the federal case, the CRD challenged the plaintiffs’ use of pseudonyms, arguing that they were not legally justified. In August 2024, the court ruled in favour of the CRD, denying the plaintiffs’ request to continue under pseudonyms. Following this, the HAF filed the Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in August 2024, including the names of two plaintiffs and removing the third from the list of previously anonymous plaintiffs.
The amended complaint reiterates arguments from the original filing, asserting that the CRD’s linkage of caste to Hinduism in the Cisco case violates Hindus’ religious rights. The complaint also cites personal injuries suffered by the plaintiffs, including reputational harm, anxiety and sleeplessness resulting from the Cisco case. While there were only minor differences between the FAC and the SAC, it would soon become clear how, under the guise of protecting religious freedom, the HAF employs sophistry to obstruct justice for the victim in the Cisco case.
The CRD’s response asserts three main points. First, it contends that addressing caste-based discrimination is within its constitutional duty to enforce civil rights protections. Second, the CRD argues that the HAF’s claims of denial of opportunity, reputational harm and psychological impacts are speculative, lacking the concrete injury required for standing. Furthermore, it asserts that the HAF’s allegations of diverted resources do not constitute significant injury to establish organisational standing. Lastly, the CRD holds that the HAF’s claims under the free exercise, establishment, due process and equal protection clauses are generalised grievances without legal foundation.
Also read: Details Revealed During Hindu American Foundation’s SLAPP Lawsuit Counter Org’s Previous Claims
HAF’s contradictory stance on caste in Hinduism
Fourteen years ago, in December 2010, the HAF released a policy document titled Hinduism: Not Cast in Caste, stating: “Hindus must acknowledge that caste arose in Hindu society, that some Hindu texts and traditions justify a birth-based hierarchy and caste bias, and that it has survived despite considerable Hindu attempts to curtail it.”
This document drew strong backlash from Hindus, who argued it infringed on their religious freedom and sentiments, questioning the HAF’s authority to speak on Hinduism and insisting that all Smritis are integral to the religion. Rather than defend its stance, the HAF removed the document from its website.
Now, as the CRD pursues justice for a victim of caste discrimination, the HAF claims that Hinduism has no connection to caste, shedding ‘crocodile tears’ in defence. Had the HAF upheld its original policy document, it would have supported the CRD’s efforts rather than obstruct them.
Linking the HAF’s stance on the Cisco case with legal protections against caste-based discrimination will help us understand how Hindu supremacists have sought to keep oppressed castes under the dominance of upper castes by opposing legal protections.
Hindu supremacists always argue that caste redress is “reverse discrimination”, as seen in their opposition to SB 403, which seeks to include caste as a protected category. In the Cisco case, the HAF contended that caste discrimination is not barred, yet they label SB 403 as portraying South Asians as “bigots, bullies, rapists, human traffickers, even murderers” to justify an alleged attack on their rights. The original page was later removed.
The message is clear: Hindu supremacists deny that caste discrimination is prohibited under current laws while fiercely opposing any new legislation protecting against it, deploying extensive resources. Their aim is to keep the caste-oppressed dependent on the mercy of dominant castes rather than ensuring civil rights and human rights protections.
The HAF asserts it represents all Hindus in California, yet the CRD challenges this, noting Hinduism’s diversity and that a victim of caste discrimination in the Cisco case is also Hindu. The CRD argues, “At least some Hindu Americans residing in California… may have interests that conflict with HAF’s purpose in this lawsuit as they may stand to benefit from the Department’s efforts to prevent and redress… caste discrimination.”
Mihir Meghani, a co-founder of the HAF, claims to experienced stigma and anxiety over caste-related remarks. It is notable, however, that as a physician, he overlooks the documented impact of caste on healthcare access, as highlighted by the National Library of Medicine (NLM), a federal arm of the US health department. In May 2021, the NLM published a paper, Caste Exclusion and Health Discrimination in South Asia: A Systematic Review, which examines caste-based inequalities in healthcare access across South Asia.
The paper explains, “The 3000-year-old caste system is one of the oldest social hierarchies and it forms the foundation of Hindu society. This system includes four divisions: ‘Brahmins’, priests; ‘Kshetriyas’, warriors; ‘Vaishyas’, merchants; and ‘Sudras’, servants. Underneath these castes lies ‘Ati-Sudra’, Dalits, also known as untouchables.” Such information, rather than causing stigma, should foster greater understanding and encourage efforts to address these inequalities.
In April 2023, the CRD dismissed both Sundar Iyer and Ramana Kompella from the Cisco case and, in December 2023, removed references that linked caste to Hinduism. Despite this, the lawsuit continues because the plaintiffs claim they “suffered deep mental, psychological and spiritual injury” due to the initial association of caste with Hinduism in the case.
There is a dedicated matrimonial site in the US specifically for brahmins, the upper-caste Hindus, where many brahmins “prefer” matches within their own caste. Hindu temples openly advertise ceremonies such as the upanayanam, described as the rite where young brahmin boys are invested with the sacred thread and initiated into the Gayatri mantra, for $251.
Don’t such practices cause the plaintiffs or organisations like the HAF “deep mental and psychological injury”? If so, why aren’t these sites and ceremonies challenged, let alone subject to similar lawsuits?
The HAF’s federal case is a veiled attempt to derail the Cisco case through speculative and implausible claims of religious violation. Its argument of religious freedom infringement serves as a smokescreen to obstruct legal remedies and protections for the caste-oppressed, both in the Cisco case and more broadly.
This is not the first time that protections against caste discrimination have been challenged in court; there are established legal precedents on this issue.
In October 2022, two California State University (CSU) professors filed a lawsuit against the CSU for including caste in its anti-discrimination policy, arguing it violated religious freedom and due process. In November 2023, a federal court dismissed the claim that the policy stigmatises Hindu practitioners, noting that the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries were conjectural or hypothetical.
In February 2023, the Seattle city council in Washington state passed a law adding caste as a protected category, which was then challenged in May 2023 as unconstitutional on similar grounds. However, in March 2024, a court upheld the law, emphasising that its purpose was to strengthen anti-discrimination protections without violating religious freedom.
In each case, the state has defended the rights of those oppressed by caste. Dominant caste individuals and organisations often have the resources to oppose protections for the caste-oppressed, even though caste is a reality in the US, affecting various spheres from work places to community organisations and from dating apps to housing.
Only a federal law can truly protect the caste-oppressed from discrimination manifesting as exclusion and denial of opportunity, beyond efforts at the university, city and corporate levels.
Against this backdrop, the December 3 hearing and its outcome will be pivotal. It could not only clarify the path forward in the Cisco caste discrimination case, but also influence public opinion in favour of broader federal legislation against caste discrimination.
Karthikeyan Shanmugam is an IT professional based in Silicon Valley, California, USA.