Anil Varshney Complaint

Case 5:23-cv-00812-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 25 FILED
2023 Jun-23 PM 03:33

U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
ANIL VARSHNEY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. ___________
)
PARSONS CORPORATION, and )
LLOYD J. AUSTIN, as )
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, )
)
Defendants. )
COMPLAINT
Plaintiff Anil Varshney (“Mr. Varshney”), by and through his undersigned
counsel, hereby states the following claims against Defendants Parsons Corporation
and Lloyd J. Austin, as Secretary of Defense, United States Missile Defense Agency:
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
1. This is an action for relief to redress unlawful discrimination by Parsons
Corporation (“Parsons”) and Lloyd J. Austin, as Secretary of Defense and
representative of the United States Missile Defense Agency (“MDA”) (together,
“Defendants”) in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”),
42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),
29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., and the Alabama Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(“AADEA”), Ala. Code § 25-1-20 et seq.
1
Case 5:23-cv-00812-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 25
2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331
(federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental).
3. Venue is proper in this district under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28
U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because unlawful employment practices were committed in this
district.
4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because (1) the
claims asserted in this action arose from or are connected with discriminatory acts
or omissions committed by them, in whole or in part, in or directed toward a resident
of the State of Alabama; (2) they have committed discriminatory acts or omissions,
directly or indirectly, that caused substantial harm in the State of Alabama; and/or
(3) they have had continuous and systematic contacts with the State of Alabama by
engaging in numerous activities in and that have had an effect in this state.
PARTIES
5. Mr. Varshney is an individual resident of Alabama over the age of
nineteen years. He was an employee of Parsons and MDA, as defined by Title VII,
the ADEA, and the AADEA. Mr. Varshney worked for MDA from approximately
January 2002 through October 3, 2022 and worked for Parsons from approximately
July 2011 through October 6, 2022.
6. Parsons is a corporation with headquarters located in Centreville,
Virginia. Parsons maintains offices and does business on the Redstone Arsenal in
2
and around Huntsville, Alabama. Parsons is engaged in an industry affecting
commerce, has fifteen (15) or more employees, and is an employer as defined by
Title VII, the ADEA, and the AADEA.
7. Lloyd J. Austin is the Secretary of Defense and legal representative for
MDA, an agency of the United States Department of Defense. MDA maintains
offices and does business on the Redstone Arsenal in and around Huntsville,
Alabama. MDA is engaged in an industry affecting commerce, has fifteen (15) or
more employees, and is an employer as defined by Title VII, the ADEA, and the
AADEA.
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
8. On November 16, 2022, Mr. Varshney timely initiated contact with
MDA’s Equal Employment Office. He filed his Pre-Complaint of Discrimination,
alleging discrimination by MDA based on race, color, national origin, and age. A
copy of the MDA Pre-Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
9. Mr. Varshney received a Notice of Rights from MDA’s EEO Counselor
on February 1, 2023. A copy of the Notice of Rights is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
10. On February 14, 2023, Mr. Varshney timely filed a Complaint of
Discrimination in the Federal Government, MDA Case No. 2023-MDA-00003,
alleging discrimination by MDA based on race, color, national origin, and age. A
copy of the MDA Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
3
11. Mr. Varshney received a Notice of Rights from MDA’s Equal
Employment Office on March 31, 2023 (“MDA Notice of Rights”). A copy of the
MDA Notice of Rights is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
12. Meanwhile, on December 20, 2022, Mr. Varshney filed a Charge of
Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),
Charge No. 420-2023-00903, alleging discrimination by Parsons based on race,
color, national origin, and age. A copy of the EEOC Charge is attached hereto as
Exhibit E.
13. Mr. Varshney received a Notice of Right to Sue from the EEOC on June
20, 2023 (“Parsons Notice of Rights”). A copy of the Parsons Notice of Rights is
attached hereto as Exhibit F.
14. This lawsuit is filed within ninety (90) days of the receipt of both the
MDA Notice of Rights and the Parsons Notice of Rights.
15. Mr. Varshney has fully complied with all prerequisites to jurisdiction
in this Court under Title VII and the ADEA. This lawsuit is also timely filed under
the AADEA.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
16. This case arises out of Defendants’ intentional acts to end Mr.
Varshney’s highly distinguished engineering career because he is a 78-year-old
Indian American. Defendants abruptly terminated Mr. Varshney after one of his
4
white colleagues overheard him speaking Hindi to his dying brother-in-law in India
and falsely reported him for a violation of “security regulations.” Mr. Varshney
accepted the call from his brother-in-law in an empty cubicle and spoke to him for
approximately two minutes. Despite there being no policy prohibiting the call, and
without any investigation, Defendants claimed Mr. Varshney committed a serious
security violation and fired him. Worse, they blackballed him from future MDA
work, effectively ending his career and life of service to MDA and the United States
government. As demonstrated below, Defendants’ reasons were a pretext for
discrimination based on Mr. Varshney’s race, skin color, national origin, and/or age.
Mr. Varshney’s Background
17. Mr. Varshney was born in India in 1944. He immigrated to the United
States in 1968, and his wife, Mrs. Shashi Varshney, immigrated one year later. Mr.
Varshney has a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Banaras Hindu
University and a Master’s Degree in Industrial and Systems Engineering from
Oklahoma State University.
18. The Varshneys settled in Huntsville, Alabama, became American
citizens, and devoted their lives to the United States government.1 They raised three
successful children, who are Rhodes scholars, entrepreneurs, doctors, and
businesspersons.
1
Mrs. Shashi Varshney has been employed by federal agency the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA) for over thirty years, since 1989.
5
19. Mr. Varshney literally achieved the “American Dream,” and his career
working on MDA’s most important projects was nothing short of exemplary.
Mr. Varshney’s Employment with MDA and Parsons
20. Mr. Varshney began working for MDA in 2002 as a Senior Systems
Engineer at the MDA building in Huntsville, Alabama, and continued working there
for over twenty years.
21. MDA has contracted with Parsons since the early 1980s to provide
engineering, analysis, and management support. In 2011, Parsons was awarded the
contract that Mr. Varshney was working on for MDA. From that point, Mr. Varshney
was jointly employed by MDA and Parsons and/or Parsons and MDA began acting
as a single employer of Mr. Varshney. He worked as a Senior Systems Engineer at
the MDA building in Huntsville under the supervision of employees of both Parsons
and MDA, including Cary Boyd (“Boyd”), Brock Owens (“Owens”), and David Lair
(“Lair”) (all white men in their 40s or 50s).
22. Mr. Varshney worked with employees of both Parsons and MDA, and
was not identified in the workplace as a separate employee of Parsons or MDA. He
was subject to the policies of both Parsons and MDA. MDA retained the right to
control the means and methods by which Mr. Varshney completed MDA’s projects.
23. Over the course of his career, Mr. Varshney developed and maintained
an excellent reputation among his colleagues and supervisors. He was never
6
disciplined and received many accolades and awards for his work, including
“Contractor of the Year” award in Systems Engineering, a letter of recommendation
from MDA’s Program Manager for saving $5 million on the Ground-based Missile
Defense program, and numerous “Employee of the Month” awards. His job required
a very high level of skill/expertise and he was a trusted employee with Secret level
clearance who worked on some of MDA’s most innovative and sophisticated
projects. Mr. Varshney’s work included providing engineering support for the
development of integrated and layered missile defense systems which defend the
United States and allied partner forces against ballistic missile threats. He provided
capability requirements analysis, system verification, and specification development
for defense weapons systems and components; worked to identify and satisfy
customer needs; and resolved issues across organization boundaries.
24. Most recently, Mr. Varshney worked on MDA’s $2.2 billion Technical,
Engineering, Advisory, and Management Support (TEAMS)–Next Systems
Engineering contract, which is currently funded through 2026. The project is
committed to advancing MDA’s mission of developing and deploying layered
missile defense systems that protect national security, deployed forces, and allied
forces from missile attacks in all phases of flight.
7
25. Despite being 78 years old, it was well known to Mr. Varshney’s
colleagues and supervisors at MDA and Parsons that he intended to continue
working and had no intention to retire.
The Deathbed Call
26. On Monday, September 26, 2022, Mr. Varshney was working at the
Huntsville MDA site, on the second floor of the MDA building. He received a video
call from his elderly brother-in-law, Mr. K.C. Gupta (“Mr. Gupta”). Mr. Gupta was
on his deathbed in India and called to say goodbye to Mr. Varshney. Knowing the
dire situation and that he may never have the opportunity to speak to Mr. Gupta
again, Mr. Varshney stepped into an empty cubicle and accepted the call. Before
doing so, he made sure there were no classified materials or anything else pertaining
to MDA’s or Parsons’ work anywhere near him. The two spoke for approximately
two minutes in Hindi.
27. Owens walked by and saw and heard Mr. Varshney speaking Hindi to
Mr. Gupta. Owens interrupted Mr. Varshney and asked whether he was on a video
call, which Mr. Varshney confirmed. Owens told Mr. Varshney that the call was not
allowed and Mr. Varshney immediately hung up. The call was the last time they
spoke before Mr. Gupta passed away.
28. Upon information and belief, Owens was intimidated by Mr. Varshney
speaking in a language he did not understand. Without any further discussion with
8
Mr. Varshney, and with the intentional purpose to discriminate against Mr. Varshney
and have him terminated, Owens falsely and intentionally reported to MDA and/or
Parsons that Mr. Varshney committed a security violation by revealing confidential
information and/or accepting this call during a confidential meeting or with
confidential information in the background of the call.
29. As Owens knew, there was no confidential or classified information
anywhere near the call. The cubicle where Mr. Varshney accepted the video call was
completely empty with no office material or wall hangings in the cubicle, and there
was no confidential information being exchanged nearby. Due to COVID protocols,
there were only two other employees on the entire floor, including Owens.
30. There is no policy, rule, or regulation of either Parsons or MDA that
prevented or prohibited Mr. Varshney from accepting the call from his dying
brother-in-law. Neither Parsons nor MDA ever instructed or communicated to Mr.
Varshney that such a call was prohibited. In fact, cell phones are expressly permitted
in the Huntsville MDA building as long as they are not taken inside classified
conference rooms or used during classified meetings.
Mr. Varshney’s Termination
31. A week later, on or about October 3, 2022, on his way to work, Mr.
Varshney received a call from his Parsons supervisor, David Lair. Lair told Mr.
9
Varshney that his “privileges at MDA [had] been revoked” and to meet him at the
MDA office.
32. When Mr. Varshney arrived, Lair and MDA security personnel met him
in the lobby, escorted him to his cubicle, and instructed him to pack up his personal
belongings. MDA security personnel opened and searched through every file in his
cubicle and through his personal belongings. Mr. Varshney was humiliated and
Defendants were essentially accusing him of being a spy simply for speaking in a
foreign language to a dying family member. Mr. Varshney was then escorted to his
car by MDA security personnel. At his car, MDA security personnel again searched
all of Mr. Varshney’s personal belongings. Mr. Varshney was not provided any
opportunity to explain the situation or refute any inaccuracies that had been reported
by Owens, either to Parsons or to MDA.
33. The next day, on October 4, 2022, Mr. Varshney received an email from
Kim Adams, Parsons’ Facility Security Officer (“FSO”) in Colorado Springs. The
email stated, “Since you are no longer supporting MDA, we will need to debrief you
of your accesses for your security clearance. Should you find another position that
requires a security clearance, we can pick up your clearance again in support of that
contract.”
34. Two days later, on or about October 6, 2022, Mr. Varshney received a
letter from Parsons with the subject “Notification of Termination.” The letter falsely
10
stated that Mr. Varshney had committed a “Major Offense” by violating government
security regulations. It further provided “Parsons was notified that [Mr. Varshney]
violated government security regulations when [he] used the Facetime application
on [his] personal phone at the classified worksite.” The letter stated that “Parsons
was also reminded that you had 2 previous security violations for connecting a
thumb-drive to your work issued computer.”
35. Despite there being no discussion with Mr. Varshney, much less any
kind of legitimate investigation, the letter stated that Mr. Varshney’s employment
with Parsons was being terminated, effective immediately.
36. Before October 6, 2022, aside from Owens’s verbal statement that his
video call was not allowed, Mr. Varshney had never been informed that he had
engaged in any activity that was considered to be a security violation, whether for
video calls, thumb drives, or anything else. Mr. Varshney had received no prior
notifications or warnings relating to these alleged incidents and had never been
contacted by either Defendants’ FSO about a security violation. And, he had not
been the subject of any inquiry or investigation into any of these alleged incidents.
He has never taken his cell phone into a classified meeting, and did not have two
prior security violations relating to the use of a thumb drive in a computer.
37. Further, Mr. Varshney had received no training that video calls are
prohibited or considered a Major Offense even when conducted in empty areas. This
11
has been confirmed by several other employees of Defendants, none of whom are
aware of any policy or regulation prohibiting video calls in empty areas.
38. Defendants departed from their ordinary protocols to discriminate
against Mr. Varshney and end his career, providing him with no due process or
recourse to dispute the falsified allegations. Defendants have since admitted that they
made no attempt to investigate the truth or veracity of any of the allegations against
Mr. Varshney or to determine whether any security violation had ever been
committed by Mr. Varshney. Instead, they falsified the reasons for Mr. Varshney’s
termination and/or relied on a falsified report that Mr. Varshney had committed a
security violation before summarily and abruptly terminating him and, upon
information and belief, replacing him with a younger, white person. Although Lair
administered Mr. Varshney’s termination, upon information and belief, the
termination decision was made by Defendants’ more senior personnel.
39. Further, Parsons has admitted that it had no independent information
about the video call and terminated Mr. Varshney at MDA’s behest. Despite having
over 15,000 employees and contracts with many other government agencies and
groups, Parsons made no attempt to assign Mr. Varshney to another position or
locate another placement in which he could work with another agency.
12
Mr. Varshney’s Disparate Treatment
40. Parsons posits itself as a “global leader” focused on security, defense,
and infrastructure, and it touts Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion as fundamental
pillars of the company’s culture. For example, on its website, Parsons highlights
flashy diversity award emblems and statistics. Its website states:
Your Voice Matters. We’re powered by our people. Our

intelligent, diverse professionals come from myriad
backgrounds, but we all share a common quest. Parsons is
committed to an inclusive culture that rewards excellence
and supports the success of all our employees. We respect
your unique voice and celebrate you for who you are. Here
— you can thrive.
See https://www.parsons.com/diversity-equity-inclusion/.
41. Federal agency MDA also claims to be committed to diversity:
MDA values every bright mind that helps us meet our

goal. For that reason, we’ve cultivated an environment
where each applicant and employee are offered an
opportunity for equal advancement and recognition,
regardless of gender, cultural background, or disability. . .
. We recognize that diversity includes, but is not limited
to, personal life experiences, geographic background,
socioeconomic background, cultural knowledge,
educational background, work background, language
abilities, physical abilities, philosophical and spiritual
perspectives, age, race, ethnicity, and gender. As an
agency, we will approach diversity as a composite of these
individual characteristics, experiences, and abilities
consistent with the MDA’s core values.
See https://www.mda.mil/careers/diversity.html.
13
42. In practice and reality however, the vast majority of Defendants’
employees are white and Defendants created and fostered an environment that
permitted, and possibly encouraged, unlawful discrimination based on Mr.
Varshney’s race, color, national origin, and/or age. Among other things, Defendants
failed to properly train their employees regarding anti-discrimination and anti-
harassment of coworkers. Defendants should be held to a high standard of conduct
especially since both operate from government funding fueled by United States tax
dollars.
43. Despite decades of work on behalf of our government, English is Mr.
Varshney’s second language and he speaks with a strong accent. While employed
with Parsons and MDA, Mr. Varshney was the target of ethnically charged and ageist
comments and actions multiple times by younger, white employees of Defendants.
For example, younger, white employees of Parsons and MDA employees would
frequently exclude Mr. Varshney from conversations while he was present in
meetings. They would use names for Mr. Varshney like “This Thing” even when he
was sitting right next to them and would complain that they could not understand his
Indian accent. Coworkers would pretend that Mr. Varshney did not exist by directing
their answers to his questions to white employees, ignoring him entirely. On one
occasion, refreshments were offered during a meeting to younger, white employees,
14
but not to Mr. Varshney. These acts and statements are just a small sampling of the
discriminatory treatment he was subjected during his employment with Defendants.
44. Defendants consistently treat others outside Mr. Varshney’s protected
categories more favorably and fail to take similar action against younger, white
employees. For example, during a live and ongoing classified meeting, where cell
phones and unclassified computers are not allowed, a younger, white employee
opened an unclassified computer and began working. That employee was simply
tapped on the shoulder and reminded that he was committing a security violation.
To Mr. Varshney’s knowledge, that incident was never reported and the individual
was not terminated or even disciplined. Younger, white employees have also been
permitted to take photos inside the MDA Huntsville building without any
repercussions. On another occasion, a younger, white employee tested positive for
drugs and was given only a short, temporary suspension.
45. Finally, Parsons has a pattern and practice of terminating senior and
older employees in order to save money. When Parsons needs to reduce its
workforce, it routinely discriminates against older employees either by terminating
them or offering them lower-paying positions. It does so instead of taking action
against younger employees because the older employees have higher salaries and it
yields higher profits.
15
The Aftermath
46. Believing his termination to have been a misunderstanding, and
desiring to be reinstated, Mr. Varshney attempted to resolve his termination through
Parsons’ Employee Dispute Resolution (“EDR”) Procedure. Parsons claims this
procedure is designed to “provide a more flexible, simpler method of resolving
disputes” and is “fast,” “confidential,” “cost effective,” “simple,” and “allows for a
full range of remedies.” However, when Mr. Varshney attempted to engage Parsons
in the EDR process, Parsons perpetuated its discrimination by failing to participate.
47. Mr. Varshney repeatedly requested Parsons to substantiate its
allegations with evidence that accepting the two-minute, private call from his dying
brother-in-law and speaking in Hindi violated MDA’s and/or Parsons’s security
protocols or policies. Parsons refused to do so because it knows that is not possible.
In fact, Parsons’ story has been a moving target and has included the patently false
premise that Mr. Varshney was terminated for taking the call in a conference room
during a meeting where classified materials were being discussed. Put simply,
Defendants’ inability to “get their story straight” is just further evidence of their
discriminatory conduct and disparate treatment of Mr. Varshney.
48. Defendants’ wrongful conduct did not end when it summarily fired Mr.
Varshney for being a 78-year-old Indian American. Since ruining his distinguished
16
career, Defendants have actively taken steps to prevent him from obtaining another
job. They have done so by, among other things, spreading rumors among the tight-
knit MDA community that Mr. Varshney committed a serious security violation,
exposed classified information, took the call in a secured conference room during a
meeting, permanently lost his security clearance, and/or can no longer work in any
capacity for MDA.
49. None of this is true. As stated above, no classified information was
exposed, the call was not in a secured conference room or during a meeting, and Mr.
Varshney has not had his security clearance permanently revoked. Although Mr.
Varshney’s secret security clearance became inactive when his job with MDA and
Parsons ended, it will become active again when and if he obtains another position
with access to classified information. See ¶ 32. As Defendants well know, Mr.
Varshney has received no notice of revocation from Defendants, the Central
Adjudication Facility (CAF), or the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals
(DOHA).
50. Mr. Varshney has diligently pursued other employment and
interviewed for several open engineering positions that he is more than qualified to
fill. Defendants’ actions, however, have directly prevented him from being hired and
have involuntarily ended his career, many years before he wanted to do so.
17
51. Even though he remains healthy and committed to continuing his
career, Mr. Varshney’s age is seen by prospective employers as an impediment to
hiring. Further, the vast majority of positions Mr. Varshney is qualified to hold in
Huntsville are subcontracted through Parsons and/or MDA. Because of this, Mr.
Varshney has been rejected for multiple job opportunities because those
opportunities would also require him to be hired or affiliated with Parsons and/or
MDA—both of whom have made it clear that they refuse to work with him. Upon
information and belief, Parsons intentionally prevented Mr. Varshney from being
hired for an open position at MDA and falsified information about him and the
circumstances surrounding his termination.
52. Stated differently, Defendants have intentionally blackballed Mr.
Varshney from his life’s work and have subjected him to embarrassment and
ridicule. Mr. Varshney has suffered extreme emotional and financial impact at the
hands of Defendants. The monetary damages incurred by Mr. Varshney as a direct
and proximate result of Defendants’ discriminatory acts and omissions are in the
millions of dollars.
COUNT ONE
Discrimination in Violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act
53. Mr. Varshney adopts and incorporates the allegations in Paragraphs 1
through 52 as if set forth fully herein.
54. Mr. Varshney is Indian, has brown skin, and was born in India.
18
55. Mr. Varshney was qualified for his position when Defendants
discriminated against him.
56. Defendants subjected Mr. Varshney to racial discrimination by, among
other things, the acts described herein (and those unknown to him), including but not
limited to: (1) subjecting him to racially offensive conduct; (2) falsely reporting him
for a security violation; (3) claiming or reporting that he committed prior security
violations; (4) failing to conduct an investigation or provide Mr. Varshney with any
due process; (5) failing to follow established procedure; (6) revoking his MDA
privileges; (7) terminating his employment; (8) refusing to reinstate him; (9) failing
to participate in EDR; (10) perpetuating the false narrative that he committed a
serious security violation; (11) misrepresenting the facts surrounding the call to
employees and third parties; (12) taking actions designed to prevent him for working
with MDA; and/or (13) otherwise ending his distinguished career.
57. Mr. Varshney’s race was a reason and motivating factor for these acts
and omissions.
58. Defendants have a habit and/or practice of discriminating based on race
and condoning and/or allowing racial discrimination.
59. Defendants treated similarly-situated employees outside of Mr.
Varshney’s protected categories more favorably.
19
60. Upon information and belief, Defendants replaced Mr. Varshney with
a white employee.
61. Defendants intentionally violated Mr. Varshney’s rights under Title
VII, with malice or reckless indifference.
62. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory actions, Mr.
Varshney suffered damages in an amount to be determined by a trier of fact.
COUNT TWO
Violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
64. Mr. Varshney is 78 years old.
65. Mr. Varshney was qualified for his position when Defendants
66. Defendants subjected Mr. Varshney to age discrimination by, among
other things, the acts described herein (and those unknown to him), including but not
limited to: (1) subjecting him to racially offensive conduct; (2) falsely reporting him
for a security violation; (3) claiming or reporting that he committed prior security
violations; (4) failing to conduct an investigation or provide Mr. Varshney with any
due process; (5) failing to follow established procedure; (6) revoking his MDA
privileges; (7) terminating his employment; (8) refusing to reinstate him; (9) failing
to participate in EDR; (10) perpetuating the false narrative that he committed a

20
serious security violation; (11) misrepresenting the facts surrounding the call to
employees and third parties; (12) taking actions designed to prevent him for working
with MDA; and/or (13) otherwise ending his distinguished career.
67. Defendants committed these discriminatory acts and omissions because
of Mr. Varshney’s age.
68. Defendants have a habit and/or practice of discriminating because of
age and condoning and/or allowing age discrimination.
69. Defendants treated similarly situated, younger employees more
favorably.
70. Upon information and belief, Defendants replaced Mr. Varshney with
a younger employee.
71. Defendants intentionally violated Mr. Varshney’s rights under the
ADEA, with malice or reckless indifference.
72. As a result of Defendants’ unlawful discriminatory actions, Mr.
Varshney suffered damages in an amount to be determined by a trier of fact.
COUNT THREE
Violation of the Alabama Age Discrimination in Employment Act
(Defendant Parsons)
74. Mr. Varshney is 78 years old.
21
75. Mr. Varshney was qualified for his position when Defendant Parsons
76. Defendant Parsons subjected Mr. Varshney to age discrimination by,
among other things, the acts described herein (and those unknown to him), including
but not limited to: (1) subjecting him to racially offensive conduct; (2) falsely
reporting him for a security violation; (3) claiming or reporting that he committed
prior security violations; (4) failing to conduct an investigation or provide Mr.
Varshney with any due process; (5) failing to follow established procedure; (6)
terminating his employment; (7) refusing to reinstate him; (8) failing to participate
in EDR; (9) perpetuating the false narrative that he committed a serious security
violation; (10) misrepresenting the facts surrounding the call to employees and third
parties; (11) taking actions designed to prevent him for working with MDA; and/or
(12) otherwise ending his distinguished career.
77. Defendant Parsons committed these discriminatory acts and omissions
because of Mr. Varshney’s age.
78. Defendant Parsons has a habit and/or practice of discriminating based
on age and condoning and/or allowing age discrimination.
79. Defendant Parsons treated similarly situated, younger employees more
favorably.
22
80. Upon information and belief, Defendant Parsons replaced Mr.
Varshney with a younger employee.
81. Defendant Parsons intentionally violated Mr. Varshney’s rights under
the AADEA, with malice or reckless indifference.
82. As a result of Defendant Parsons’ unlawful discriminatory actions, Mr.
Varshney suffered damages, including for emotional distress, in an amount to be
determined by a trier of fact.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Mr. Varshney respectfully requests judgment as follows
against Defendants, jointly and severally:
A. Award Mr. Varshney his past and future loss of wages and benefits, plus
interest;
B. Order Defendants to reinstate Mr. Varshney’s privileges that were in
existence as of September 26, 2022;
C. Order Defendants to remove and/or revoke any disciplinary records from Mr.
Varshney’s personnel file(s);
D. Order Defendants to reinstate Mr. Varshney to a position comparable to his
former position or, in lieu of reinstatement, award him front pay (including
benefits);
23
E. Award Mr. Varshney compensatory damages, including but not limited to
damages for mental anguish and emotional distress;
F. Award Mr. Varshney punitive and liquidated damages;
G. Award Mr. Varshney all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in
connection with this action; and
H. Grant such additional or alternative relief as the Court deems just and proper.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Mr. Varshney demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.
/s/ Jennifer H. Wheeler

Walter A. “Tod” Dodgen
John B. Holmes, III
Jennifer Hanson Wheeler
Attorneys for Plaintiff Anil Varshney
OF COUNSEL:
Walter A. “Tod” Dodgen
Maynard Nexsen PC
665 Gallatin St SW
Huntsville, AL 35801
Telephone: (256) 551-0171
Fax: (205) 254-1999
Email: tdodgen@maynardnexsen.com
John B. Holmes, III

Jennifer Hanson Wheeler
Maynard Nexsen PC
1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700
Birmingham, AL 35203
Telephone: (205) 254-1000
Fax: (205) 254-1999
Email: jholmes@maynardnexsen.com
jwheeler@maynardnexsen.com
24
PLEASE SERVE DEFENDANTS BY CERTIFIED MAIL AS FOLLOWS:

Parsons Corporation
c/o CT Corporation System
4701 Cox Rd Ste 285
Glen Allen, VA 23060
Lloyd J. Austin, Secretary of Defense

United States Department of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
25
Case 5:23-cv-00812-LCB Document 1-1 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 36 FILED
2023 Jun-23 PM 03:33
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
EXHIBIT A
Case 5:23-cv-00812-LCB Document 1-1 Filed 06/23/23 Page 2 of 36
EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY (EEO) PRE-COMPLAINT INTAKE FORM

(This form is subject to the Privacy Act of 1974)
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT
AUTHORITY: 42 U.S.C. 2000e-16(b) and (c); 29 U.S.C. 204(f) and 206(d); 29 U.S.C. 633(a); 29 U.S.C. 791; Reorg. Plan No. 1 of 1978, 43 FR
19607 (May 9, 1978); E.O. 12106, 44 FR 1053 (January 3, 1979).
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): Information is collected in order to counsel, investigate and adjudicate complaints of employment discrimination and
related appeals brought by applicants and current and former federal employees against federal employers.
ROUTINE USE(S): To disclose information to another federal agency, to a court, or to a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative
proceeding being conducted by a federal agency when the government is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding. To provide information
to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of that
individual. To disclose to an authorized appeal grievance examiner, formal complaints examiner, administrative judge, equal employment
opportunity investigator, arbitrator or other duly authorized official engaged in investigation or settlement of a grievance, complaint or appeal filed by
an employee. To disclose, in response to a request for discovery or for appearance of a witness, information that is relevant to the subject matter
involved in a pending judicial or administrative proceeding. For a complete list of routine uses, visit
http://www.defenselink.mil/privacy/govwide/eeoc_govt-1.html.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary; however, failure to complete all portions of this form may lead to dismissal of complaint on the basis of inadequate data
on which to determine if complaint is acceptable for processing.
RULES OF USE: Rules for collecting, using, retaining, and safeguarding this information are contained in Privacy Act System Notice EEOC/Govt-1,
entitled “Equal Employment Opportunity in the Federal Government Complaint and Appeal Records” available at
http://www.defenselink.mil/privacy/govwide/eeoc_govt-1.html.
1a. I.D. Number (EEO Office Use Only) 1b. MDA Case Number (EEO Office Use Only) 2. Name of Aggrieved (Last, First, MI)
Varshney, Anil
3a. Grade/Series/Job Title 4. Name & Address of Agency and Organization Where Allegation(s) Arose
Senior Systems Engineer (Include City, State and Zip Code)
Missile Defense Agency
3b. Employment Status 5222 Martin Road SW
Gov't/Civilian Huntsville, AL 35898
5a. Work Phone 5b. Personal Phone (Optional)
N/A
6. Home Address (Include City, State and Zip Code) 7. E-mail Address (Optional)
8. Initial Contact Date with EEO Official (mm/dd/yyyy)

11/16/2022
9. Aggreived Informed of Right to Representation (EEO Office Use Only)
X Yes No
10. Date Alleged Act of Discrimination Occured 12. Representative's Contact Information (Mailing Address and e-mail Address)
10/3/2022 Maynard Cooper & Gale, PC
1901 6th Avenue North, Ste 1700
11. Representative's Name
Birmingham, AL 35203
Jennifer Wheeler jwheeler@maynardcooper.com
13. Representative's Work Phone 14. Representative is a Lawyer
205-488-3603 Yes No
15. Aggreived Informed of Right to Remain Anonymous During Informal Stage of Complaint Process (EEO Office Use Only)
Desires to remain anonymous X Does not desire to remain anonymous
16a. Basis of Discrimination ("X" below to select the basis or bases that apply to your claim or claims of discrimination.)
a. Race (State your race) e. Disability (Describe nature of disability)
Physical Mental
Indian
b. Color (State your color)

f. Age (State your date of birth) g. Sex
Brown
Male Female Sexual Orientation
c. Religion (State your religion)
Pregnancy Gender Identity LGBT
d. National Origin (State your National Origin)
h. Reprisal (Date and nature of your participation in the processing of an EEO complaint or other
India EEO related activity)
i. Genetic Information
MDA FORM 1877 MAR 2015 Page 1 of 5


16b. BRIEFLY STATE YOUR CLAIM OR CLAIMS OF DISCRIMINATION. This is where you describe how you were harmed in regard to a term or
condition of employment because of your race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age (40 and above), mental or physical disability, genetic
information, pregnancy discrimination, or reprisal. Provide a date for each claim of discrimination; identify who was involved, and what
happened. Attach any documentation you wish to submit in support of your claim or claims of discrimination. Use additional paper if necessary.
See attached.


17. Alleged Responsible Management Official(s)
Name Organization Work Phone
(Provide title, series, and grade if known) (Include mailing address and work e-mail address if known) (If known)
Brock Owens MDA
18. Witnesses to be Interviewed Who Have First-Hand Knowledge

Name Organization Work Phone
(Provide title, series, and grade if known) (Include mailing address and work e-mail address if known) (If known)
See attached.
19. What are you seeking to Resolve this Pre-complaint? (Be Specific)
Reinstatement of job and security privileges without retaliation. Backpay, punitive damages, lost benefits, front pay (if not
reinstated), attorney's fees.
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
20a. Aggrieved was Counseled on the EEO Administrative Complaint Process as Outlined in 29
CFR Part 1614. (EEO Office Use Only)
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
20b. Aggrieved was Provided EEO Rights and Responsibilities Notice (EEO Office Use Only)
21. Complainant Provided with Information on Other Avenues of Redress (EEO Office Use Only):
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board Administrative Grievance Procedure
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
22. Complainant Offered Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) as a Means to Resolve the Complaint Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
(EEO Office Use Only)
Accepted Rejected
23. Aggrieved Signature Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
s/ Anil Varshney 11/23/2022


This form is for your use if you are a federal employee, former employee, or applicant for federal employment. If you believe you have been
discriminated against in an employment matter based on one or more of the following protected groups or activities, you may initiate the EEO
complaint process:
Race,
Color,
Religion,
Sex,
National Origin,
Age (40 years old or older),
Disability (physical or mental),
Genetic Information,
Pregnancy, and/or
Reprisal (for taking part in the discrimination complaint process or for opposing any unlawful employment practice under its authority)
The person who believes she or he has been discriminated against is called the aggrieved or the aggrieved person in the MDA Form 1877 and the
instructions to fill out the MDA Form 1877 below. To assist the aggrieved person in providing all the information required in order to file a complaint of
discrimination, this pre-complaint form (MDA Form 1877) is provided. The aggrieved person must participate in the Equal Employment Opportunity
(EEO) pre-complaint process before filing a formal complaint of discrimination.
Disclosure of personal information is voluntary; however, failure to complete all portions of this form identified to be completed by the aggrieved person
may lead to closure of the pre-complaint process because the information required to process the pre-complaint was not provided. Upon completion, return the
signed and dated DLA Form 1877 to the DLA EEO Office. The address is listed in the packet you received.
1. MDA CASE NUMBER (EEO Office Use Only) – An EEO Staff member will enter the information.
2. NAME OF AGGRIEVED – List the last name, first name, and middle initial of the person who is aggrieved.
3. GRADE/SERIES/JOB TITLE – List the aggrieved person’s current position (if this is applicable).
4. NAME & ADDRESS OF AGENCY ORGANIZATION WHERE ALLEGATION(S) AROSE – State the name of the MDA organization, branch division,
street name, city, state, and zip code where the alleged discrimination happened.
5. WORK PHONE NUMBER OR PERSONAL PHONE NUMBER – List the aggrieved person’s area code and telephone number.
6. HOME ADDRESS – List the aggrieved person’s home address to include the street number, city, state, and zip code.
7. E-MAIL ADDRESS (Optional) – List the aggrieved person’s work or personal e-mail address.
8. INITIAL CONTACT DATE WITH EEO OFFICIAL – List the date the aggrieved person contacted an EEO official. In accordance with 29 CFR §
1614.105(a)(1) an individual must initiate contact with an EEO staff member or EEO Counselor within 45 calendar days of the Agency’s alleged act of
discrimination, or in the case of a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of the effective date of the action.
9. AGGRIEVED INFORMED OF RIGHT TO REPRESENTATION (EEO Office Use Only) – An EEO Staff member will enter this information. You may
designate a representative at any stage of the complaint process, including the pre-complaint counseling stage. You must designate your choice of a representative
in writing. Please note: The designation of a specific representative may not cause undue delay to the EEO process or unwarranted expense to the Defense
Logistics Agency. In addition, the designation of a representative that may create a conflict of interest may not be allowed.
10. DATE ALLEGED ACT OF DISCRIMINATION OCCURRED – State the month, date, and year when the alleged discriminatory act occurred.
(Dates are used to determine timeliness in accordance with the EEOC regulation 29 CFR 1614.)
11. REPRESENTATIVE’S NAME – List the first and last name of the aggrieved person’s representative.
12. REPRESENTATIVE’S CONTACT INFORMATION – List the street name, city, zip code, and email address.
13. REPRESENTATIVE’S WORK PHONE – List the area code and telephone number.
14. REPRESENTATIVE IS OR IS NOT A LAWYER – Indicate if the aggrieved person’s representative is a lawyer or not. In accordance with 29 CFR
§ 1614.605(d) and (e) “Unless the complainant states otherwise in writing, after the agency has received written notice of the name, address and
telephone number of a representative for the complainant, all official correspondence shall be with the representative with copies to the complainant.
When the complainant designates an attorney as representative, service of all official correspondence shall be made on the attorney and the
complainant, but time frames for receipt of materials shall be computed from the time of receipt by the attorney. The complainant must serve all official
correspondence on the designated representative of the agency.” “The Complainant shall at all times be responsible for proceeding with the complaint
whether or not he or she has designated a representative.”
15. AGGRIEVED INFORMED OF RIGHT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS DURING INFORMAL STAGE OF COMPLAINT PROCESS (EEO Office
Use Only) – For EEO Staff Member to complete. In the informal or pre-complaint stage of the EEO process an aggrieved person has the right to
remain anonymous. If you request anonymity, the MDA EEO office will honor your request. However, in some instances, such as certain harassment
cases, the MDA EEO office is required to divulge information regarding your pre-complaint to appropriate MDA officials. When a complaint reaches the
formal stage, your identity will not be kept confidential during the formal complaint process.


16a. BASIS OF DISCRIMINATION – Aggrieved to place an “X” only on the basis or bases that apply to his/her claim or claims of discrimination. For
example, if you feel that you were discriminated because of race, you should check the box next to Race. If you feel that you were discriminated
because of your sex, religion and national origin, you should only check those five boxes.
16b. BRIEFLY STATE YOUR CLAIM(S) OF DISCRIMINATION – State clearly the action(s) which the aggrieved person alleges MDA took or failed to
take that he/she believes to be discriminatory. What action(s) was taken or not taken that led the aggrieved person to contact EEO. Provide a date for
each action, and identify who was involved.
17. ALLEGED RESPONSIBLE MANAGEMENT OFFICIAL – List the name, title, series, organization, address, telephone number, and e-mail address
of the management official(s) who took or failed to take an action.
18. WITNESSES TO BE INTERVIEWED WHO HAVE FIRST-HAND KNOWLEDGE – List the name, title, series, organization, address, telephone
number, and e-mail address of any witnesses who has first-hand knowledge of the alleged discriminatory incident(s).
19. WHAT ARE YOU SEEKING TO RESOLVE THIS COMPLAINT? – Specify the relief the aggrieved person is seeking.
20a. – AGGRIEVED WAS COUNSELED ON THE EEO ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINT PROCESS AS OUTLINED IN 29 CFR 1614 (EEO Office
Use Only) - An EEO staff member will enter the information.
20b. – AGGRIEVED PROVIDED EEO RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES NOTICE (EEO Office Use Only) – An EEO staff member will enter the
information.
21. COMPLAINANT PROVIDED WITH INFORMATION ON OTHER AVENUES OF REDRESS (EEO Office Use Only) – An EEO staff member
will enter the information.
22. AGGRIEVED OFFERED ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) AS A MEANS TO RESOLVE THE COMPLAINT (EEO Office
Use Only) – An EEO staff member will enter the information.
23. AGGRIEVED SIGNATURE AND DATE – The aggrieved person signs and dates MDA Form 1877.
Please return the signed and dated MDA Form 1877 to the MDA EEO Office.
The address is listed in the packet you received.

Addendum to EEO Pre-Complaint Intake Form – Mr. Anil Varshney
Mr. Varshney is a 78-year-old Indian man who has faithfully and honestly served his joint
employer MDA for 21 years. During that period, he has been given awards from time to time for
excellent performance. During that time, he has also been subjected to multiple and continual
instances of mistreatment and comments based on his race, color, and national origin. These
comments have occurred in a local work environment that has consistently lacked the diversity of
workforce and leadership to properly prevent and address such matters before or as they arise. This
mistreatment escalated to the point where Mr. Varshney was abruptly terminated from his position
as a Senior Systems Engineer and had his security privileges revoked based on discrimination due
to race, color, national origin, and age.
On October 3, 2022, Mr. Varshney was informed that MDA had terminated Mr. Varshney
and revoked his security privileges. On the same day, an MDA employee reported Mr. Varshney
to his joint employer Parsons Corporation for using Facetime on his personal phone at the MDA
worksite, and for two prior alleged security violations relating to use of a thumb drive in a
computer. As a result of MDA’s report, Parsons also terminated Mr. Varshney’s employment.
Mr. Varshney had received no prior notifications or warnings related to the alleged
incidents and had not been the subject of any inquiry or investigation into any of these alleged
incidents. Despite Mr. Varshney’s record of faithful service to MDA, Mr. Varshney is not aware
of any investigation by MDA into the truth or veracity of the allegations. If MDA had properly
investigated the circumstances of the Facetime call, it would have learned that the call was received
in an empty area where no work was being completed and no classified information was in the
area. The Facetime call was necessary to receive an urgent family communication and was
approximately two minutes long. No other personnel were in the area. Toward the end of the call,
a white MDA employee, Brock Owens, walked by and saw Mr. Varshney speaking Hindi to his
family members.
While Mr. Varshney acknowledges that cell phones are not permitted in the conference
rooms during classified meetings, they are permitted in the office at MDA Huntsville. (This is in
stark contrast to MDA Colorado Springs, where cell phones are not even permitted in the
building.) Mr. Varshney does not recall training material clearly stating that Facetiming is
prohibited or considered a security offense even when conducted in empty areas and in urgent
family situations. If such training was provided, it was ineffective. After being terminated, Mr.
Varshney asked two current employees working in the MDA building and if they were aware of
this rule, and they were not. Mr. Varshney also was not made aware of any prior security violations
except for a call from IT stating that he had inadvertently placed a thumb drive into the wrong
computer by mistake on one occasion. He was not served any notice or consulted, reprimanded, or
investigated by anyone including a supervisor about any other incident.
Mr. Varshney has been the target of ethnically charged comments and actions multiple
times by white employees of MDA, including being treated differently than the younger, white
employees. For example, MDA employees would exclude him while including white employees,
use names for him like “this Thing” even when he was sitting right next to them, and complain
that they couldn’t understand Mr. Varshney’s Indian accent. MDA employees regularly pretend
that Mr. Varshney does not exist by directing their answers to Mr. Varshney’s questions to white
employees, ignoring him entirely. Although these incidents happened with extreme frequency,
some specific examples that Mr. Varshney can recall at this time, as well as witnesses to this
behavior, are included below. The environment created does not allow for reporting of this
behavior and allows for unlawful discrimination against Mr. Varshney based on his race, color,
national origin, and age.
MDA has treated others outside Mr. Varshney’s protected categories more favorably. On
numerous occasions white MDA employees have taken cell phones into classified
meetings. If/when they or others realize it has been done, they have simply been allowed to
remove their cell phones from the room without reporting, reprimand, or termination. Mr.
Varshney is also aware of at least one recent specific situation involving a far more serious security
violation made by a younger white male that did not result in reporting or enforcement. In a
classified VTC meeting, where cell phones and unclassified computers are not allowed, this
individual opened an unclassified computer and was simply tapped and told by another individual
that it was a security violation. It was not reported and to Mr. Varshney’s knowledge, the individual
was not terminated. This classified meeting was attended by Mr. Cary Boyd and Mr. Alvin Myers
of THAAD Fire Control and Communication (TFCC), among others. Mr. Varshney has clearly
been treated differently for a much less serious situation and without any risk to classified
information.
MDA terminated Mr. Varshney because of Mr. Varshney’s race, color, national origin, and
age. The lack of investigation, inquiry, and proper training, combined with the racially charged
environment to which Mr. Varshney has been subjected, are evidence that Mr. Varshney has been
unlawfully discriminated against due to his race, color, national origin, and age. Enforcement of
the supposed security violations has been inconsistently applied within MDA and Mr. Varshney
has been treated less favorably by MDA than others outside his protected categories. This
discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (Title VII); the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA); the Alabama Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (AADEA); and the Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and
Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act).
After 20+ years of service to MDA, Mr. Varshney’s career was ended abruptly with
extreme emotional and financial impact. He intended to continue serving his profession and the
government in the years ahead. Given his age, MDA has effectively ended that opportunity.
However, Mr. Varshney’s security clearance with respect to other agencies remains intact. He
requests to be reinstated with MDA, and to be paid backpay, lost benefits, punitive damages, and
attorneys’ fees. If Mr. Varshney cannot be reinstated, he also requests payment of front pay.
2
Question 18: Witnesses to be Interviewed Who Have First-Hand Knowledge
1. Brock Owens, MDA – Mr. Owens witnessed the end of Mr. Varshney’s Facetime call as
referenced above.
2. David Lair, Senior Technical Consultant, Parsons Corporation – Mr. Lair was Mr.
Varshney’s supervisor at Parsons and terminated Mr. Varshney based on MDA’s October
3 report.
3. Cary Boyd and Alvin Myers, both from THAAD Fire Control and Communication – These
gentlemen witnessed the more serious security violation referenced above.
4. Tim Nolfo and Craig Meadows, both from Targets.
a. In 2021, MDA employees who were supporting the Targets group, including Mr.
Varshney, went to Florida on a company trip. While sitting around a table at a
restaurant, many of Mr. Varshney’s coworkers decided to go outside to get fresh
air, leaving Mr. Varshney alone with Mr. Nolfo. Mr. Nolfo asked the departing
group why they were leaving “this Thing” with him, indicating Mr. Varshney. Mr.
Meadows witnessed this exchange.
b. The next day, Mr. Meadows, another individual, Mr. Nolfo, and Mr. Varshney were
on site standing in the sun. Mr. Nolfo decided to bring water bottles for the group.
He began passing out the bottles, but only to the white people, purposefully
skipping over Mr. Varshney.
3
EXHIBIT B
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
5700 18th STREET
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-5573
EO
DATE: 02-01-23
SUBJECT: Notice of Final Interview/Right To File a Discrimination Complaint
TO: Anil Varshney (Jennifer Wheeler –representative)

Sent via email: jwheeler@maynardcooper.com
1. This serves as notice that on 01-31-23, the final counseling interview as held in connection with
the claims you presented to the Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Office Counselor. My
initial interview with you was on 12-21-22. During our conversation, you alleged that you were
discriminated against based on your race (Indian) National Orgin (India), age (over 40- DOB
9/23/44), and color (Brown) when:
• On 10-6-22 you received a letter from your employer (Parsons) informing you that you were
being terminated because of a security violation reported by a MDA employee.
• You also stated you were subjected to a hostile work environment by co-workers when you
were constantly referred to as “this thing”.
2. If you believe you have been discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex,
national origin, age, disability, genetic information and/or reprisal for participate in protected
EEO activity or opposition to prohibited discrimination, you have the right to file a formal
complaint of discrimination within 15 calendar days of receipt of this notice.
3. This complaint must be in writing, preferable on DD FORM 2655, which is provided for your
convenience. Your complaint must be filed by you or your representative via email within 15
calendar days after receipt of this notice, with the following official(s) authorized to receive
discrimination complaints.
ATTN: Corey Pitts, Complaints Manager

equal-opportunity@mda.mil
4. A Formal Complaint must specify the claims(s) and the basis(es) of the complaint discussed
during the counseling session. It is important that you state the incident(s) that caused you to
initiate your complaint as concisely as possible, citing the nature of the action, the date of the
action, and the person(s) involved. You may only raise claim(s) and incident(s) discussed, or like
or related to those discussed during counseling. The complaint should also state whether you
filed a grievance under a Negotiated Grievance Procedure or an appeal to the Merit System
Protection Board, on the same subject matter, including dates. This information is necessary to
determine whether your complaint is appropriate for processing under Title 29, Code of Federal
Regulation, Part 1614.
5. You are advised that if your representative is an attorney, service of all official correspondence
will be made to the attorney with a copy furnished to you, however, time frames for the receipt of
correspondence will be computed from the date of receipt by the attorney.
6. You and/or your representative will receive a written acknowledgement of receipt of your formal
discrimination complaint from the EO Director.
7. The POC is Corey M. Pitts, EEO Complaints Manager 256-450-3233.
Complainant NAME Date
Counselor NAME Date

EEO Counselor
Encl: (1) Formal Complaint Form

EXHIBIT C
COMPLAINT OF DISCRIMINATION IN THE FOR AGENCY USE

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
(See Page 3 for Privacy Act Statement and Iinstructions - Please type or print)
1. FULL NAME OF COMPLAINANT (Last, First, Middle Initial) 2. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include
Varshney, Anil Area Code)
3. ADDRESS (Street, City, State, and ZIP Code) a. HOME
(
b. OFFICE
( )
4. FEDERAL OFFICE YOU BELIEVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST YOU 5. ARE YOU NOW WORKING FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT?
(Prepare a separate complaint form for each office which you believe (If answer is "Yes" complete a, b, and c below.)
discriminated against you.) YES NO
a. NAME OF OFFICE THAT YOU BELIEVE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST YOU a. NAME OF AGENCY WHERE YOU WORK
Missile Defense Agency Missile Defense Agency

b. ADDRESS OF OFFICE (Street, City, State, and ZIP Code) b. ADDRESS OF YOUR AGENCY (Street, City, State, and ZIP Code)
5222 Martin Road SW 5222 Martin Road SW

Huntsville, AL 35898 Huntsville, AL 35898
c. NAME AND TITLE OF PERSON(S) YOU BELIEVE DISCRIMINATED c. TITLE AND GRADE OF YOUR JOB
AGAINST YOU (If you know)
Senior Systems Engineer
Unknown / Brock Owens
6. ELECTION OF REPRESENTATION ATTORNEY NON-ATTORNEY NO REPRESENTATION 7. DATE ON WHICH MOST RECENT

a. NAME OF REPRESENTATIVE (If applicable) ALLEGED DISCRIMINATION TOOK
Jennifer Wheeler PLACE (YYYYMMDD)
b. ADDRESS (Include ZIP Code)
2022/10/06
Maynard Cooper & Gale, 1901 Sixth Avenue North, Suite 1700, Birmingham, AL 35203
c. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Incl. area code) d. FAX NUMBER (Incl. area code) e. E-MAIL ADDRESS
(205) 488-3603 jwheeler@maynardcooper.com
8. CHECK BELOW WHY YOU BELIEVE YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
a. RACE (If so, state your race) Indian
b. COLOR (If so, state your color) Brown
c. RELIGION (If so, state your religion)
d. NATIONAL ORIGIN (If so, state your national origin) India
e. SEX (If so, state your sex)
f. AGE (If so, state your age) (See Note 1)
g. DISABILITY (If so, state whether mental or physical)
h. SEXUAL HARASSMENT (If so, state your sex and the sex of the person you believe harassed you)
i. REPRISAL FOR PREVIOUS EEO ACTIVITY (If so, when)
j. GENETIC INFORMATION
k. PREGNANCY
Note 1: Complaints of discrimination because of age apply only to employees or applicants who were at least 40 years of age at the time the
discriminatory action is alleged to have occurred.
9. EXPLAIN IN SPECIFICS HOW YOU BELIEVE YOU WERE DISCRIMINATED AGAINST (treated differently from other employees or applicants)
DUE TO YOUR RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, SEX, AGE, PREGNANCY, GENETIC INFORMATION, DISABILITY, OR REPRISAL
(For each allegation, please state to the best of your knowledge, information and belief what incident occurred and when the incident occurred.
If you need more space, continue on another sheet of paper.)
See attached.
DD FORM 2655, JUN 2012 PREVIOUS EDITION IS OBSOLETE. Page 1 of 3 Pages

Adobe Professional 8.0
10. I HAVE DISCUSSED MY COMPLAINT WITH AN EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 11. NAME OF COUNSELOR (If applicable)
OPPORTUNITY COUNSELOR (See instructions)
Harry Carter
-><~| YES | | NO
12. HAVE THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN BLOCK 9 BEEN APPEALED TO THE MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD (MSPB) OR FILED UNDER
A UNION NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE? | y | no | | YES (If Yes, complete 12.a., b., and c. below)
’ r
a. (X one) b. DATE FILED (YYYYMMDD) c. MSPB OR UNION DOCKET NUMBER (If known)
| MSPB | | UNION NEGOTIATED GRIEVANCE
13. WHAT RELIEF ARE YOU SEEKING TO RESOLVE THIS COMPLAINT? (State specific corrective action desired for each allegation.)
See attached.
14. LIST NAME(S) OF WITNESS(ES) AND BRIEFLY STATE WHAT INFORMATION WITNESS MAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE INVESTIGATION OF
YOUR COMPLAINT.
See attached.
15. SIGNATURE OF COMPI 16. DATE OF THIS COMPLAINT

(YYYYMMDD)
2023/02/14
DD FORM 2655, JUN 2012 Page 2 of 3 Pages
PRIVACY ACT STATEMENT

AUTHORITY: 10 U.S.C. 136; 29 U.S.C. 791, 792, 793, and 795; DoD Directive 1440.1; and E.O. 12106.
PRINCIPAL PURPOSE(S): To establish case records and document the counseling, investigation, and adjudication of complaints of employment
discrimination brought by applicants and current and former DoD employees against the DoD.
ROUTINE USE(S): Records may be provided to EEO officials, hearing examiners, investigators and arbitrators, or by representatives of the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the courts concerning the complaint and appeal. The Blanket Routine Uses found at
http://dpclo.defense.gov/privacy/SORNs/blanket_routine_uses.html apply to these records. The specific routine uses found at
http://dpclo.defense.gov/privacy/SORNs/govt/EEOCGOVT-1.html also apply to these records.
DISCLOSURE: Voluntary. However, if the individual does not furnish the information requested, processing the complaint may be delayed or
impaired.
READ INSTRUCTIONS CAREFULLY

This form should be used only if you, as an applicant for Federal employment or a Federal employee, think you have been discriminated against
due to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, pregnancy, genetic information, disability, or reprisal by a Federal agency and have
presented the matter for informal resolution to an Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor within 45 calendar days of the date the incident
occurred or, if a personnel action, within 45 calendar days of its effective date.
Your complaint must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date of your final interview with the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor. If
the matter has not been resolved to your satisfaction within 30 calendar days of your first interview with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Counselor and the final counseling interview has not been completed within that time, you have the right to file a complaint at any time
thereafter up to 15 days after the final interview.
These time limits may be extended if you show that you were not notified of the time limits and were not otherwise aware of them, or that you
were prevented by circumstances beyond your control from submitting the matter within the time limits, or for other reasons considered
sufficient by the agency.
If you need help in the preparation of your complaint, you may contact the Equal Employment Opportunity Counselor who provided you with
your initial counseling, or you may secure help from a representative of your choice.
For complaints filed against the Immediate Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff and all activities receiving administrative support
from Washington Headquarters Services, the individuals designated to receive complaints are the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer or the
Director, EEO, Office of the Secretary of Defense. Complaints generated within agencies outside the above designated activities must be filed
with that agency's individual designated to receive complaints of discrimination, i.e., the Chief EEO Counselor.
You may have a representative of your own choosing at all stages of the processing of your complaints.
You will have an opportunity to talk with an investigator and present all the facts which you believe show discrimination. The investigator will
not be under the jurisdiction of the head of that part of the agency in which the alleged discrimination took place.
After the investigation of your complaint has been completed, you will be furnished a copy of the Report of Investigation. You will be given an
opportunity to request a hearing, which will be conducted by an Administrative Judge assigned by the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). The hearing will be held at a convenient time and place. At the hearing, you may present witnesses and other evidence
on your behalf.
The final decision (in writing) will be made by the head of the agency or his or her designee. If a hearing is held on your complaint, the head of
the agency or the designee will review the decision recommended by the Administrative Judge before making a final decision, and will furnish
you with a transcript of the hearing, a copy of the findings, analysis, and recommended action of the Administrative Judge, along with the
agency's final decision letter.
If you are not satisfied with the final agency decision, you have the right to appeal that decision within 30 calendar days after receipt to the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations, P.O. Box 77960, Washington, DC 20013.
If your complaint is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, pregnancy, genetic information, disability, or reprisal, you may file a civil
action in an appropriate U.S. District Court within 90 days of receipt of the agency's decision or, if you elect to file an appeal with the
Commission, you may still file a civil action in a Federal District Court within 90 days of the Commission's decision if you are dissatisfied with
the decision.
If your complaint is based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, pregnancy, genetic information, disability, or reprisal, you may file a civil
action in an appropriate U.S. District Court if you have not received a final agency decision within 180 days of filing your complaint with the
agency or if you have not received a final Commission decision within 180 days of filing your appeal with the Commission's Office of Federal
Operations.
DD FORM 2655, JUN 2012 Page 3 of 3 Pages

Addendum to EEO Complaint of Discrimination

in the Federal Government – Mr. Anil Varshney
Mr. Varshney is a 78-year-old Indian man who has faithfully and honestly served his
joint employer MDA for 21 years. During that period, he has been given awards from time to
time for excellent performance. During that time, he has also been subjected to multiple and
continual instances of mistreatment and comments based on his race, color, and national origin.
These comments have occurred in a local work environment that has consistently lacked the
diversity of workforce and leadership to properly prevent and address such matters before or as
they arise. This mistreatment escalated to the point where Mr. Varshney was abruptly terminated
from his position as a Senior Systems Engineer and had his security privileges revoked based on
discrimination due to race, color, national origin, and age.
On October 3, 2022, Mr. Varshney was informed that MDA had terminated Mr.
Varshney and revoked his security privileges. On the same day, an MDA employee reported Mr.
Varshney to his joint employer Parsons Corporation for using Facetime on his personal phone at
the MDA worksite, and for two prior alleged security violations relating to use of a thumb drive
in a computer. As a result of MDA’s report, Parsons also terminated Mr. Varshney’s
employment.
Mr. Varshney had received no prior notifications or warnings related to the alleged
incidents and had not been the subject of any inquiry or investigation into any of these alleged
incidents. Despite Mr. Varshney’s record of faithful service to MDA, Mr. Varshney is not aware
of any investigation by MDA into the truth or veracity of the allegations. If MDA had properly
investigated the circumstances of the Facetime call, it would have learned that the call was
received in an empty cubicle area where no work was being completed and no classified
information was in the area. The Facetime call was necessary to receive an urgent family
communication and was approximately two minutes long. No other personnel were in the area;
indeed, due to COVID protocols, on that day there were only two other employees on the entire
floor. Mr. Varshney was not in or close to any confidential meeting. He was not even scheduled
for any confidential meeting on the day the call took place. Toward the end of the call, a younger
white MDA employee, Brock Owens, happened to walk by and saw Mr. Varshney speaking
Hindi to his family members.
While Mr. Varshney acknowledges that cell phones are not permitted in the conference
rooms during classified meetings, they are permitted in the office at MDA Huntsville. (This is in
stark contrast to MDA Colorado Springs, where cell phones are not even permitted in the
building.) There is nothing prohibiting Mr. Varshney from talking on his personal phone in the
area where he took the Facetime call. Mr. Varshney does not recall any training material clearly
stating that Facetiming is prohibited or considered a security offense even when conducted in
empty areas and in urgent family situations. If such training was provided, it was ineffective.
After being terminated, Mr. Varshney asked four current employees working in the MDA
building if they were aware of this rule, and they were not. Mr. Varshney also was not made
aware of any prior security violations except for one call from IT stating that he had
inadvertently placed a thumb drive into the wrong computer by mistake on one occasion. He was
not served any notice or consulted, reprimanded, or investigated by anyone including a
06732545.1
supervisor about a second thumb drive incident or any other incident. And to Mr. Varshney’s
knowledge there is no record at MDA or Parsons of any security violations prior to the Facetime
call.
Mr. Varshney has been the target of ethnically charged comments and actions multiple
times by white employees of MDA, including being treated differently than the younger, white
employees. For example, MDA employees would exclude him while including white employees,
use names for him like “this Thing” even when he was sitting right next to them, and complain
that they couldn’t understand Mr. Varshney’s Indian accent. MDA employees regularly
pretended that Mr. Varshney did not exist by directing their answers to Mr. Varshney’s questions
to white employees, ignoring him entirely. Although these incidents happened with extreme
frequency, some specific examples that Mr. Varshney can recall at this time, as well as witnesses
to this behavior, are included below. The environment created does not allow for reporting of
this behavior and allows for unlawful discrimination against Mr. Varshney based on his race,
color, national origin, and age.
MDA has treated others outside Mr. Varshney’s protected categories more favorably. On
numerous occasions white MDA employees have taken cell phones into classified
meetings. If/when they or others realize it has been done, they have simply been allowed to
remove their cell phones from the room without reporting, reprimand, or termination. Mr.
Varshney is also aware of at least one recent specific situation involving a far more serious
security violation made by a younger white male that did not result in reporting or enforcement.
In a classified VTC meeting, where cell phones and unclassified computers are not allowed, this
individual opened and began working on an unclassified computer and was simply tapped and
told by another individual that it was a security violation. This violation was not reported and to
Mr. Varshney’s knowledge, the individual was not terminated. This classified meeting was
attended by Mr. Cary Boyd and Mr. Alvin Myers of THAAD Fire Control and Communication
(TFCC), among others. Mr. Varshney has clearly been treated differently for a much less serious
situation and without any risk to classified information. In another instance, a younger white
male, Mr. Jim Cambron, took a picture inside of the MDA building and received no discipline.
MDA terminated Mr. Varshney because of Mr. Varshney’s race, color, national origin,
and age. The lack of investigation, inquiry, and proper training, combined with the racially
charged environment to which Mr. Varshney has been subjected, are evidence that Mr. Varshney
has been unlawfully discriminated against due to his race, color, national origin, and age.
Enforcement of the supposed security violations has been inconsistently applied within MDA
and Mr. Varshney has been treated less favorably by MDA than others outside his protected
categories. This discrimination violates Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended
(Title VII); the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA); the Alabama Age
Discrimination in Employment Act (AADEA); and the Notification and Federal Employee
Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002 (No FEAR Act).
After 20+ years of service to MDA, Mr. Varshney’s career was ended abruptly with
extreme emotional and financial impact. He intended to continue serving his profession and the
government in the years ahead. Given his age, MDA has effectively ended that opportunity.
However, Mr. Varshney’s security clearance with respect to other agencies remains intact. He
requests to be reinstated with MDA, reinstatement of his security privileges, and to be paid
06732545.1 2
backpay, lost benefits, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees. If Mr. Varshney cannot be
reinstated, he also requests payment of front pay.
Question 14: Witnesses to be Interviewed Who Have First-Hand Knowledge
1. Brock Owens, MDA (or former employee of MDA) – Mr. Owens witnessed the end of
Mr. Varshney’s Facetime call as referenced above.
2. David Lair, Senior Technical Consultant, Parsons Corporation – Mr. Lair was Mr.
Varshney’s supervisor at Parsons and terminated Mr. Varshney based on MDA’s report.
3. Cary Boyd and Alvin Myers, both from THAAD Fire Control and Communication –
These gentlemen witnessed the more serious security violation referenced above.
4. Jim Cambron, MDA – Mr. Cambron is a comparator who was not terminated.
5. Tim Nolfo and Craig Meadows, both from Targets.
a. In 2021, MDA employees who were supporting the Targets group, including Mr.
Varshney, went to Florida on a company trip. While sitting around a table at a
restaurant, many of Mr. Varshney’s coworkers decided to go outside to get fresh
air, leaving Mr. Varshney alone with Mr. Nolfo. Mr. Nolfo asked the departing
group why they were leaving “this Thing” with him, indicating Mr. Varshney. Mr.
Meadows witnessed this exchange.
b. The next day, Mr. Meadows, another individual, Mr. Nolfo, and Mr. Varshney
were on site standing in the sun. Mr. Nolfo decided to bring water bottles for the
group. He began passing out the bottles, but only to the white people,
purposefully skipping over Mr. Varshney.
06732545.1 3
EXHIBIT D
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
MISSILE DEFENSE AGENCY
5700 18th STREET
FORT BELVOIR, VIRGINIA 22060-5573
EO March 31, 2023
Via Electronic Mail: jwheeler@maynardcooper.com
Complaint of Anil Varshney

v. Lloyd J. Austin, III, Secretary of Defense
MDA Case Number: 2023-MDA-00003
Dear Ms. Jennifer Wheeler:
On November 16, 2022, it was brought to the attention of Missile Defense Agency EEO
Office that you will be representing Mr. Anil Varshney during the process of his formal
complaint. In light of the National Emergency declared by the President due to the
Coronavirus (COVID-19), the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s Office of
Federal Operations and Missile Defense Agency do not have access to U.S. mail. We ask
that all submissions and communication be digital (see attached EEOC guidance), via
EEOC Public Portal https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx and MDA email
address Equal-Opportunity@mda.mil.
This correspondence is in reference to the complaint of discrimination your client filed against
the Missile Defense Agency (hereinafter “the Agency”). This letter also provides written
notification of your client’s rights and the time requirements associated with those rights.
Please refer to the Agency Case No.: 2023-MDA-00003, in all correspondence related to this
matter. On February 14, 2023, your client alleged he had been subjected to discrimination based
on race (Indian), color (brown), national origin (India) and age (YOB: by Mr. Brock
Owens, Deputy Program Manager (DPM), TH Ground Systems when:
1. On October 2, 2022, Mr. Owens was responsible for your client’s security privileges
being revoked, termination of his employment at MDA, and recommended that his
employment at Parsons Corporation also be terminated.
2. On October 6, 2022, your client's was terminated by Parsons Corporation due to Mr.
Owens' recommendation.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Your client contacted the Equal Opportunity for pre-complaint counseling on November 23,
2022, and he received the Notice of Right to File a Formal Complaint of Discrimination on
February 1, 2023. Your client’s formal discrimination complaint was received and deemed filed
on February 14, 2021, pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended. The
Agency acknowledged receipt on February 15, 2023. By letter dated February 15, 2023, the
Agency accepted the complaint pursuant to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) regulation found in Title 29 Code of Federal Regulations (29 C.F.R.) Part 1614. The
complaint was assigned to LDM Group, to perform EEO Counseling on December 15, 2022 and
completed on February 1, 2023.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Your client is a former Senior Systems Engineer formally employed by a private company,
Parsons Corporation at the MDA, Redstone Arsenal, AL. In the counselor’s report your client
acknowledged that he was employed by Parsons Corporation as a Senior Systems Engineer until
October 6, 2022. Your client worked in Systems Engineer (MDA/SE) as a contractor under the
TEAMS Next Contract (HQ0858-21-C-0015), the counselor’s report indicated that Mr. David
Lair, Senior Technical Consultant for Parsons supporting the TEAMS Next MDA Engineering
contract with MDA was responsible for overseeing and evaluating your client’s work to the
contract.
Mr. Lair, whom identified himself as your client’s immediate supervisor at Parsons stated that
your client’s cubicle location was within MDA Building 5222 on Redstone Arsenal and MDA
along with Parsons provided technology equipment needed to meet job requirements. He
explained that Parsons managed your client’s time and attendance and leave requests. Mr. Lair
indicated your client received his paychecks from Parsons and he did not receive any health
insurance from MDA. He also indicated that MDA did not have the authority to evaluate your
client’s work performance.
LEGAL ANALYSIS
To pursue an EEO complaint, an Agency must determine whether a Complainant is an Agency

employee or an applicant for employment within the meaning of Section 717(a) of Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. Section 717(a) provides in relevant part that "[a]ll
personnel actions affecting employees or applicants for…in executive agencies…shall be made
free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Thus,
Section 717(a) expressly prohibits discrimination by federal Agencies against "employees" and
"applicants for employment."
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC or Commission) Regulations at 29 C.F.R.

§ 1614.107(a)(1) provide, in relevant part, that an Agency shall dismiss a complaint that fails to
state a claim. An Agency shall accept a complaint from any Aggrieved employee or applicant for
employment who believes that she or he has been discriminated against by the Agency because
of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age or disabling condition. 1 Accordingly, a
complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim when a complainant is not an employee
or applicant for employment with the federal government.
The Commission has applied the common law of Agency test to determine whether complainants
are Agency employee under laws enforced by the EEOC. Specifically, the EEOC will look to
the following non‐exhaustive list of factors: (1) the extent of the employer's right to control the
means and manner of the worker's performance; (2) the kind of occupation, with reference to
whether the work usually is done under the direction of a supervisor or is done by a specialist
1
See 29 C.F.R. §§ 1614.103, .106(a).
without supervision; (3) the skill required in the particular occupation; (4) whether the
"employer" or the individual furnishes the equipment used and the place of work; (5) the length
of time the individual has worked; (6) the method of payment, whether by time or by the job; (7)
the manner in which the work relationship is terminated, i.e., by one or both parties, with or
without notice and explanation; (8) whether annual leave is afforded; (9) whether the work is an
integral part of the business of the "employer;" (10) whether the worker accumulates retirement
benefits; (11) whether the "employer" pays social security taxes; and (12) the intention of the
parties. 2
For this analysis, the Agency accepts as true Parsons Corporation, Senior Technical Consultant,
Mr. Lair’s assertions to the EEO Counselor, as referenced in the counselor’s report. Mr. Lair
stated that the complainant had been a contractor with Missile Defense Agency, during his tenure
the Agency did not control the means and manner of the Complainant’s performance with his
work being completed under the direction of a Contract supervisor. The Agency furnished the
place of work, and the Agency and Parsons furnished the equipment used. Complainant was not
compensated by MDA. Under the terms of the contract, Complainant received paid time off and
was eligible to receive worker’s compensation benefits by his contract company. Complainant’s
work as a Systems Engineer under the TEAMS Next Contract was an integral part of the
Agency’s business. Complainant accrued no federal employee competitive or excepted service
credit or retirement benefits.
Mr. David Liar, Senior Technical Consultant, Parsons Corporation, and the Agency agreed there
was no creation of an employer-employee relationship, analysis of the foregoing factors under
the common law of agency test required, on balance, the determination that the complaint should
be dismissed pursuant to 29 C.F.R. §107(a)(1).
Additionally, under circumstances individuals who work for an outside organization may assert a
claim against an Agency that is determined to have joint liability. In determining whether a
federal Agency is liable jointly in a claim asserted by an individual employed by the Parsons
Corporation, we looked to the Commission’s enforcement guidance found at Enforcement
Guidance: Application of EEO Laws to Contingent Workers Placed by Temporary Employment
Agencies and Other Staffing Firms. (December 3, 1997) (available at
https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/conting.html). “A federal Agency qualifies as a joint
employer of an individual assigned to it if it has the requisite control over the worker…and if the
Agency discriminates against the individual, it is liable whether or not the individual is on the
federal payroll.” See Section 4, pg. 13. The information provided indicates that your client was
not a MDA employee, he provided no work to a MDA employee, nor did your client have a
MDA supervisor. Therefore, the MDA had no ongoing relationship with your client nor did they
have any authority over him or any aspect of the manner by which his work was achieved. For
these reasons, your client cannot file an EEO complaint against the MDA under 29 C.F.R. §
1614 because it does not qualify as a joint employer. Id at Section 3, pg. 12. As a result, the
Agency must dismiss your client’s complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim pursuant to
29 C.F.R. § 1614.107(a)(1). This is a Dismissal of your client’s complaint. If he is dissatisfied
with this final decision, your client has the following appeal rights:
2
Ma v. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., EEOC Appeal No. 01962390 (June 1, 1998) (individual to be considered
an employee and not a contactor).
APPEAL RIGHTS
Your client may file an appeal with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
within 30 calendar days of receipt of this decision. The thirty day period for filing an appeal
begins on the day after the date of receipt of this decision. The appeal will be considered
timely if it is delivered in person, by facsimile, or postmarked before the expiration of the
applicable filing period. In the absence of a legible postmark, the appeal will be considered
timely if it is received by mail within five days of the expiration of the applicable filing
period. Appeals to the EEOC should be forwarded to the Director, Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission, Office of Federal Operations, Post Office Box 77960,
Washington, D.C. 20013, with a copy to this office within 30 days of filing the Notice of
Appeal. Conversely, due to COVID-19, the EEOC provided the following guidance:
1. With regard to appealing to the EEOC’s Office of Federal Operations (OFO), while
Complainant’s may receive an appellate decision via U.S. Mail, those with an account
with the EEOC’s Public Portal, may waive receipt via U.S. Mail and receive the
decision via the EEOC’s Public Portal. Please note that there may be a delay in the
issuance of decisions sent by mail.
2. While the EEOC and OFO have limited access to U.S. Mail, parties are encouraged to
utilize the Commission’s digital platforms, such as the EEOC Public Portal, to
communicate. Therefore, any documentation your client desires to forward to the
EEOC or the OFO, should be in PDF format and uploaded to the FEDSEP Public
Portal at https://publicportal.eeoc.gov/Portal/Login.aspx.
In or attached to the appeal, the Complainant must certify the date and method by which service
was made to the Agency. A copy of this decision must also be attached to the notice of appeal
form 573. Failure to file the appeal within the 30-day period could result in the EEOC’s
dismissal of the appeal, unless it is explained, in writing, extenuating circumstances which
prevented filing within the prescribed time limit. In that event, extending the time limit and
accepting the appeal will be at the EEOC’s discretion.
The Complainant may file a brief or statement in support of his appeal with the Office of Federal
Operations. Complainant’s brief or statement must be filed within 30 calendar days from the date
the appeal is filed, with a copy to this office.
CIVIL ACTIONS
In lieu of an appeal to the EEOC, the Complainant may file a civil action in an appropriate
United States District Court within 90 calendar days of receipt of this final decision. If the
Complainant filed an appeal with the EEOC, and is not satisfied with the EEOC’s decision, the
Complainant may file a civil action in a United States District Court within 90 calendar days
of receipt of the EEOC’s final decision.
The Complainant may also file a civil action any time after 180 calendar days from the date of
filing an appeal with the EEOC, if there has been no final decision by the EEOC.
Upon request, the Civil Rights Act and the Rehabilitation Act gives the Court discretionary
authority to appoint an attorney to represent the Complainant free of charge without payment of
any fees or costs. The grant or denial of the Complainant’s request is within the sole discretion
of the Court. Please note that the national origin discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)
contains no specific provision for a court appointed attorney.
If the Complainant files a civil action involving this complaint, the Complainant must
specifically name Mr. Lloyd J. Austin, Secretary of Defense, as the defendant. Failure to do
so may result in the loss of any judicial redress to which the Complainant may be entitled.
It is important to note that Title 29 C.F.R. § 1614.409 states that “[filing a civil action under
§ 1614.408 or § 1614.409 shall terminate Commission processing of the appeal].” If a private
suit is filed subsequent to the filing of the appeal, the parties are requested to notify the EEOC in
writing.
The docket number identified at the top of page 1 of this letter should be used on all
correspondence.
The point of contact is the Complaints Manager, Corey Pitts at corey.pitts@mda.mil.
Sincerely,
Enclosures MELTINA BYNUM

Counseling Report Director, Equal Opportunity and
EEOC Form 573 Diversity Management
cc
Complainant
EXHIBIT E
RECEIVED
20 DEC 2022
Birmingham District Office
US EEOC
%<1:=AC@3E7B6$=@;
#%! !!!)<23@B63%@7D/1G1B=4 %C0

!/E /CB6=@7BGB=@3?C3AB>3@A=</:2/B/
/<27BACA3A/@3
"!!!$=@;6/@53=47A1@7;7</B7=<
"!!%)
'

3 0)
'

)
'

)
'

)
'

44
" (63>C@>=A3A=4/16/@53B/93<=<B67A4=@;=@=B63@E7A3@32C132B=E@7B7<5
E63B63@:/B3@@31=@232=<B67A4=@;=@<=B/@3/A/>>:71/0:3C<23@B63$/<B7 27A1@7;7</B7=<AB/BCB3A$
AB/BCB3AB=>@3A3@D3>@7D/B3AC7B@756BAC<23@B63$AB/BCB3AB=7<D=93B63$A8C@7A271B7=</<2E63@3
2C/: 47:7<5=@@343@@/:/@@/<53;3<BA3F7ABB=0357<AB/B3=@:=1/:>@=13327<5A
"!" (67A4=@;7ACA32B=>@=D7234/1BAB6/B;/G3AB/0:7A6B633F7AB3<13=4;/BB3@A1=D3@320GB63
$AB/BCB3A/<2/A/>>:71/0:3=B63@4323@/:AB/B3=@:=1/::/EA
<4=@;/B7=<57D3<E7::03CA320GAB/44B=
5C7237BA;327/B7=</<27<D3AB75/B7=<344=@BA/<2/A/>>:71/0:3B=23B3@;7<31=<17:7/B3/<2:7B75/B31:/7;A=4
C<:/E4C:27A1@7;7</B7=<
(67A4=@;;/G03>@3A3<B32B==@27A1:=A32B==B63@4323@/:AB/B3=@:=1/:/53<173A/A
/>>@=>@7/B3=@<313AA/@G7<1/@@G7<5=CB$A4C<1B7=<A
1=>G=4B67A16/@53E7::=@27</@7:G03A3<BB=B63
@3A>=<23<B=@5/<7H/B7=</5/7<ABE6716B6316/@537A;/23
$! " !%!!#!6/@53A;CAB03

@32C132B=E@7B7<5/<2A6=C:2723<B74GB6316/@57<5>/@BG/<2@3A>=<23<B/<2B63/1B7=<A=@>=:7173A1=;>:/7<32
=4
+7B6=CB/E@7BB3<16/@53$E7::=@27</@7:G<=B/1B=<B631=;>:/7<B
6/@53AC<23@(7B:3*=@#
;CAB03AE=@<B==@/447@;3237B63@0GCA7<5B67A4=@;=@0G>@3A3<B7<5/<=B/@7H32AB/B3;3<B=@C<AE=@<
231:/@/B7=<C<23@>3</:BG=4>3@8C@G16/@53AC<23@B63A6=C:2=@27</@7:G03A75<32
6/@53A;/G03
1:/@74732=@/;>:74732:/B3@0G/;3<2;3<B
B7A<=B;/<2/B=@GB6/BB67A4=@;03CA32B=;/93/16/@53
!!!" ! " !!$!#$
6/@53A47:32/B/AB/B3=@:=1/:/7@;>:=G;3<B%@/1B713A53<1G%B6/B2C/: 47:3A16/@53AE7B6$E7::
=@27</@7:G036/<2:3247@AB0GB63%
'=;316/@53A47:32/B$;/G/:A=0347@AB6/<2:320G/%C<23@
E=@9A6/@7<5/5@33;3<BA
-=CE7::03B=:2E6716/53<1GE7::6/<2:3G=C@16/@53
+63<B63%7AB6347@ABB=
6/<2:3B6316/@537BE7::<=B74GG=C=47BA47</:@3A=:CB7=<=4B63;/BB3@
(63<74G=CE7A6$B=57D3'C0AB/<B7/:
+3756B&3D73EB=B63%A47</:47<27<5AG=C;CAB/A9CA7<E@7B7<5B=2=A=E7B67< 2/GA=4G=C@@3137>B=47BA
47<27<5A
$B63@E7A3E3E7::=@27</@7:G/2=>BB63%A47<27<5/<21:=A3=C@47:3=<B6316/@53
!!!"!
%:3/A3./2+(4$=@B63AB/B3=@:=1/:/53<1GE63@3G=C47:32G=C@16/@53+(0'2&-+&2+/.+12&,'.&)&+.124/3/0
/2*'01E6==>>=A327A1@7;7</B7=<=@1==>3@/B37</<G7<D3AB75/B7=<=@:/EAC7B1=<13@<7<5B67A16/@53
)<23@
'31B7=</=4(7B:3*'31B7=<2=4B63'31B7=</=4B63/<2'31B7=<4=4#7B7A
C<:/E4C:4=@/<!$ #,&B=27A1@7;7</B3/5/7<AB>@3A3<B=@4=@;3@3;>:=G33A=@8=0/>>:71/<BA4=@/<
!$ #,!"(",B=27A1@7;7</B3/5/7<AB/<G=<3=@4=@/)"#"B=27A1@7;7</B3/5/7<AB7BA;3;03@A=@
;3;03@A67>/>>:71/<BA031/CA3B63G6/D3=>>=A32/<G>@/1B713;/23C<:/E4C:0GB63AB/BCB3A=@031/CA3B63G
6/D3;/23/16/@53B3AB74732/AA7AB32=@>/@B717>/B327</<G;/<<3@7</<7<D3AB75/B7=<>@=13327<5=@63/@7<5
C<23@B63:/EA
(63?C/:%/G1B6/AA7;7:/@>@=D7A7=<A/<2'31B7=<0=4B63>@=6707BA1=3@17=<
7<B7;72/B7=<B6@3/BA=@7<B3@43@3<13E7B6/<G=<34=@3F3@17A7<5=@3<8=G7<5=@/727<5=@3<1=C@/57<5=B63@A7<
B637@3F3@17A3=@3<8=G;3<B=4@756BAC<23@B631B

Addendum to EEOC Charge No. 420-2023-00903
I am a 78-year-old Indian man who has faithfully and honestly served MDA for 21 years
and was employed by Parsons as its loyal employee for 11 years. During that period, I was given
awards from time to time for excellent performance. During that time, I was also subjected to
multiple and continual instances of mistreatment and comments based on my race, color, national
origin, and age. These comments occurred in a local work environment that consistently lacked
the diversity of workforce and leadership to properly prevent and address such matters before or
as they arose. This mistreatment escalated to the point where I was abruptly terminated based on
discrimination due to race, color, national origin, and age.
On October 6, 2022, I received a Notification of Termination from Parsons and David Lair,
Senior Technical Consultant, stating that I had committed a “Major Offense” by “us[ing] the
Facetime application on [my] personal phone at the classified worksite.” The letter claimed that I
had two prior security violations relating to the use of a thumb drive in a computer. These alleged
violations were apparently reported to Parsons by an MDA employee. I had received no prior
notifications or warnings related to the alleged incidents and had not been the subject of any inquiry
or investigation into any of these alleged incidents. Despite my record of faithful service to
Parsons, Parsons conducted no investigation into the truth or veracity of the allegations. It also
made no attempt to locate another placement for me. Rather, I simply received a sudden call from
Mr. Lair on October 3, 2022, stating that my privileges at MDA had been revoked and to meet him
at the worksite, where I was escorted out by security and subsequently terminated.
If Parsons had properly investigated the circumstances of the Facetime call, it would have
learned that the call was received in an empty area where no work was being completed and no
classified information was in the area. The Facetime call was necessary to receive an urgent family
communication and was approximately two minutes long. No other personnel were in the area.
Toward the end of the call, a white MDA employee, Brock Owens, walked by and saw me speaking
Hindi to my family members.
While I acknowledge that cell phones are not permitted in the conference rooms during
classified meetings, they are permitted in the offices. (This is in stark contrast to MDA Colorado
Springs, where cell phones are not even permitted in the building.) I do not recall training material
clearly stating that Facetiming is prohibited or considered a Major Offense even when conducted
in empty areas and in urgent family situations. If such training was provided, it was ineffective.
Since being terminated, I asked three current contractor-employees working in the MDA building
if they were aware of this rule, and they were not. I also was not made aware of any prior security
violations except for one call from IT stating that I had inadvertently placed a thumb drive into the
wrong computer by mistake. I was not served any notice or consulted, reprimanded, or investigated
by anyone including a supervisor about any other incident.
I have been the target of ethnically charged comments and actions multiple times by white
employees of Parsons and MDA, including being treated differently than the younger, white
employees. For example, coworkers would exclude me while including white employees, use
names for me like “this Thing” even when I was sitting right next to them, and complain that they
couldn’t understand my Indian accent. They would regularly pretend that I did not exist by
directing their answers to my questions to white employees, ignoring me entirely. Although these
incidents happened with extreme frequency, some specific examples that I can recall at this time
are as follows:
x In 2021, Parsons and MDA employees who were supporting the Targets group, including
me, went to Florida on a company trip. While sitting around a table at a restaurant, many
of my coworkers decided to go outside to get fresh air, leaving me alone with Mr. Tim
Nolfo. Mr. Nolfo asked the departing group why they were leaving “this Thing” with him,
indicating me. Mr. Craig Meadows witnessed this exchange.
x The next day, Mr. Meadows, another individual, Mr. Nolfo, and I were on-site standing in
the sun. Mr. Nolfo decided to bring water bottles for the group. He began passing out the
bottles, but only to the white people, purposefully skipping over me.
The environment created allows for unlawful discrimination against me based on my race, color,
national origin, and age. Parsons also has a history of terminating senior and older employees. In
many instances, these terminations came under the guise of contract cost-cutting measures. I am
aware of only one of these employees who was offered a replacement job, but that was at a much
lower salary.
Parsons and MDA have treated others outside my protected categories more favorably. I
am aware of at least one recent situation involving a far more serious security violation made by a
younger white male that did not result in reporting or enforcement. In a classified VTC meeting,
where cell phones and unclassified computers are not allowed, this individual opened an
unclassified computer and was simply tapped and told by another individual that it was a security
violation. It was not reported and to my knowledge, the individual was not terminated. This
classified meeting was attended by Mr. Cary Boyd and Mr. Alvin Myers of THAAD Fire Control
and Communication (TFCC), among others.
Parsons terminated me at the behest of an MDA employee who was motivated by

discrimination based on my race, color, national origin, and age. The lack of investigation, inquiry,
and proper training, combined with Parsons’ snap reaction to terminate me after 11 years of service
and over 20 years of service to the US government, strongly suggest that I have been unlawfully
discriminated against due to my race, color, national origin, and age. Enforcement of the supposed
security violations has been inconsistently applied within MDA and Parsons and I have been
treated less favorably by both MDA and Parsons than others outside my protected categories.
Parsons’ discrimination against me is in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as
amended; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; and the Alabama Age Discrimination in
Employment Act (AADEA).
After 20+ years of service to MDA and 11+ years of service to Parsons, my career was
ended abruptly with extreme emotional and financial impact. I intended to continue serving my
profession and the government in the years ahead. Given my age, Parsons has effectively ended
that opportunity. However, my security clearance with respect to other agencies remains intact. I
would like to be reinstated with Parsons (if my reinstatement can be without retaliation and
guaranteed for one year), and to be paid backpay, lost benefits, punitive damages, and attorneys’
fees. If I cannot be reinstated, I also request payment of front pay.
I attempted to resolve my complaints through Parsons’ Employee Dispute Resolution

procedures, but Parsons was unwilling to participate in an in-person mediation as set forth in its
own procedures. I also filed an EEO pre-complaint with my joint employer MDA through the
federal sector EEO process.
EXHIBIT F
012134506734897843990388 2 2
!"#$ 3%&'('3))(0
123456789@67A8B5
CCDE6FFG3HI955I6HPQIRS6HQ2I56FEEE
T29U2G4R8US6VW66DXFEX
YGI8@56YG`P9U8I2PG6a9PQbc6dEEeffgehEEE
YGI8@56YG`P9U8I2PG6a9PQb6iipc6dEEffgefdFE
T29U2G4R8U6q295BI6q28Ac6rFEXs6fXCetEFE
uVv6rFEXs6FCFeFCEX
w5xy2I5c655PB4P
%2822676%34332
riR2y6PI2B5695bA8B5y66u1H6CfCCfCeVs
YyyQ536Gc6EfFEFEFD
VG2A689yRG5
CDC6YGPP36i982A6HI56CtEE
iHYWWS6VW6DXdEf
R89456Pc6hFEeFEFDeEEgED
615b95y5GI8I2568G365U82Ac VWYYV6V1iYeHi
HQb592yP9
8A2B28U89I2GeyBRQIde55PB4P
%282267364
iR566R8y6498GI536PQ9695fQ5yI6`P9686PI2B56P`6124RI6IP6HQ5S68G36UP956IR8G6CdE638y6R856
b8yy536y2GB56IR56̀2A2G46P`6IR2y6BR8945
iR5662y6I59U2G8I2G462Iy6b9PB5yy2G46P`6IR2y6BR8945
4330333204
iR2y62y6P``2B28A6GPI2B56̀9PU6IR566P`6IR5632yU2yy8A6P`6PQ96BR894568G36P`6PQ96924RI6IP6yQ56Y`6
PQ6BRPPy56IP6̀2A5686A8yQ2I68482GyI6IR5695ybPG35GIrys6PG6IR2y6BR89456QG3596`53598A6A862G6̀53598A6
P96yI8I56BPQ9IS6gh3i$j&h'3 h&'3k03)i0l3m3no3%623)3gh30(0p'3)3'#&3!'(01
15B52bI645G598AA6PBBQ9y6PG6IR5638I56IR8I6PQ6rP96PQ9695b95y5GI8I25s6256IR2y63PBQU5GIpPQ6
yRPQA36@55b68695BP936P`6IR5638I56PQ695B52536IR2y6GPI2B56pPQ96924RI6IP6yQ56x8y536PG6IR2y6BR89456
2AA6x56APyI62̀6PQ63P6GPI6̀2A5686A8yQ2I62G6BPQ9I62IR2G6gE638y6riR56I2U56A2U2I6̀P96̀2A2G4686A8yQ2I6
x8y536PG686BA82U6QG3596yI8I56A86U86x5632̀`595GIs
Y`6PQ6̀2A5686A8yQ2I6x8y536PG6IR2y6BR8945S6bA58y56y24Ge2G6IP6IR5667QxA2B67P9I8A68G36QbAP836IR56
BPQ9I6BPUbA82GI6IP6BR89456hFEeFEFDeEEgED
G6x5R8À6P`6IR56PUU2 yyx2~PzwGwS{x{{vwxyxz{|z}~x
x
vwxyxz{|z}~xy~zy~~{{{{
qrstuT983A5V
VVG359yPG
q2yI92BI6q295BIP9
0123
45678933783
577355863
3!" 3#$3#$%3&3
'78(3)0313
3
#23)633953
#45673398953
73#289735999359@43#668937A3
'65B62B(30C3DE1F3
3
G96H953I2993953
)4583953"393
F3#6823059P3Q582(3#66893A3
'65B62B(30C3DE1D33
3
3
39793598638267386R93H53465359R587P3
01234567899009428949345678919!59"#$%&&'(
)0123456)207389568@76271)9)0A7BC)67
C0@8376D8795EB780123F8@7GH76D87882F7
IPQRSTRUVWXYàRWUTXbc̀abSTaWTVRcRUdTSeRaTRUTfbgbX`cTWXThàabTiWeXaTpqrstuvsrstwxuxwyTVTWeT̀cSWT
c̀UTaWTSebTic̀RYRUdTRWc̀aRWUSTWVThàabTc̀Tcb`SbTbT̀`XbTaQàTaRYbTcRYRaSTY`TbTSQWXabXT̀UgT
WaQbXTXWRSRWUSTWVThàabTc̀TY`TbTgRVVbXbUaTaQÙTaQWSbTgbSiXRbgTbcWT
)423650676)4879)4)6B777@5HB76271)9875795EBC)67
94692445894938993569!159897854181"5'9189198927!89495271419
4696593899243191924679def77ghij7kl7dem7ghdm7ikn7tsospqs7dej70kdrms98289
!818733981598989819469"47946797878581t8'948189598394793s9u46954639
vmmw7h7xmrkxg7kl7dem7ghdm7ikn7xmrmymg7dej7fkdrms9128959z#{987495955894679
7!9495689|5894198927!8978877894919594289339|89345s99469181949241563919
471894695463949549743s9}t89467947189924949594289198978247949
46797828t1!99"83947981t8348's9
9467935691236859923961879890~639929"0'9469659389467924319
192467919&98759"9875947933639t43415'949898946991497828t898~639s9
59893947931!919093569595878974989z#{931!9874961879389
9899}94798909788778949|4t8s987847899469354931949568961879
3899899}947989091941949561!9419890923946793569
659|8938919z#95949594289hfg91989&{9479{87909874s9
u467935699|8938919ss9572946794799892467949248819675241s9
88794693891988739479892467959987947946949828987931!9494679
4718s9u4696593899243199241159954795881949892594946792589
295459946978981389497838s931!9594289591498146!s94794789147419
|46931!993569!49495%%s8842s!4t%834885%356s2s9
5662308H73838B80656)207
479147419|4693421!919471894978785819469!4949
5%%s8842s!4t%834885%356s2s9
19t87938927265128599ss9572946799419194718949787858191t6359
49841578998978911233961|38949479194718s9
D2E762738C8B67H2C37FD53A871)98750@7@5H76)4879)4)67123738C8B6B7
878978949594978~6859927!89389$'9998~6859479&'9982419978~685s9u4699
78~6859467927!89389618798879479|4974286785s9009219!818733978541949824199
78~685594789743919978~6855s9
128993569659|8938919z#9594959142893858956|9467978~68594798927!89
3897439493349562819894790094978541919479467978t8s96|995!189
781978~685951!9959998~685947998241998~68594797!896|879&#{
&#&{##z#949895729782479973891875419$$#9&&197889469689&###9
71!99&#s9
u4692193549899978~685941318995%%8842s7258s24%4%473%34!1s9
01234567899009428949345678919!59"#$%&&'(
)46901978268598927!89389639494#9159879782851!959428949!949668799887989
4#9159589355899146901978268598927!89389413199146958938993569192467919
37458992431949892467924033194900799
@47904789147041941956A01!9@B89826855919682419CD982685599!494E9
35E%%788427!45%8842%4%18F72079

Anil Varshney Complaint

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Anil Varshney Complaint

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 5:23-cv-00812-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/23 Page 1 of 25 FILED

2023 Jun-23 PM 03:33

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff Anil Varshney (“Mr. Varshney”), by and through his undersigned

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. This is an action for relief to redress unlawful discrimination by Parsons

Corporation (“Parsons”) and Lloyd J. Austin, as Secretary of Defense and

representative of the United States Missile Defense Agency (“MDA”) (together,

42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”),

(“AADEA”), Ala. Code § 25-1-20 et seq.

(federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) (supplemental).

3. Venue is proper in this district under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(3) and 28

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because unlawful employment practices were committed in this

or omissions committed by them, in whole or in part, in or directed toward a resident

5. Mr. Varshney is an individual resident of Alabama over the age of

July 2011 through October 6, 2022.

6. Parsons is a corporation with headquarters located in Centreville,

and around Huntsville, Alabama. Parsons is engaged in an industry affecting

commerce, has fifteen (15) or more employees, and is an employer as defined by

Title VII, the ADEA, and the AADEA.

7. Lloyd J. Austin is the Secretary of Defense and legal representative for

MDA, an agency of the United States Department of Defense. MDA maintains

Alabama. MDA is engaged in an industry affecting commerce, has fifteen (15) or

8. On November 16, 2022, Mr. Varshney timely initiated contact with

MDA’s Equal Employment Office. He filed his Pre-Complaint of Discrimination,

copy of the MDA Pre-Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

9. Mr. Varshney received a Notice of Rights from MDA’s EEO Counselor

on February 1, 2023. A copy of the Notice of Rights is attached hereto as Exhibit B.

10. On February 14, 2023, Mr. Varshney timely filed a Complaint of

Discrimination in the Federal Government, MDA Case No. 2023-MDA-00003,

copy of the MDA Complaint is attached hereto as Exhibit C.

11. Mr. Varshney received a Notice of Rights from MDA’s Equal

MDA Notice of Rights is attached hereto as Exhibit D.

12. Meanwhile, on December 20, 2022, Mr. Varshney filed a Charge of

Discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”),

Charge No. 420-2023-00903, alleging discrimination by Parsons based on race,

attached hereto as Exhibit F.

MDA Notice of Rights and the Parsons Notice of Rights.

Varshney’s highly distinguished engineering career because he is a 78-year-old

without any investigation, Defendants claimed Mr. Varshney committed a serious

government. As demonstrated below, Defendants’ reasons were a pretext for

Mr. Varshney’s Background

Varshney has a Bachelor’s Degree in Mechanical Engineering from Banaras Hindu

University and a Master’s Degree in Industrial and Systems Engineering from

Oklahoma State University.

18. The Varshneys settled in Huntsville, Alabama, became American

successful children, who are Rhodes scholars, entrepreneurs, doctors, and

working on MDA’s most important projects was nothing short of exemplary.

Mr. Varshney’s Employment with MDA and Parsons

for over twenty years.

as a single employer of Mr. Varshney. He worked as a Senior Systems Engineer at

(“Lair”) (all white men in their 40s or 50s).

was not identified in the workplace as a separate employee of Parsons or MDA. He

an excellent reputation among his colleagues and supervisors. He was never

“Contractor of the Year” award in Systems Engineering, a letter of recommendation

clearance who worked on some of MDA’s most innovative and sophisticated

capability requirements analysis, system verification, and specification development

customer needs; and resolved issues across organization boundaries.

Engineering, Advisory, and Management Support (TEAMS)–Next Systems

Engineering contract, which is currently funded through 2026. The project is

committed to advancing MDA’s mission of developing and deploying layered

forces from missile attacks in all phases of flight.

colleagues and supervisors at MDA and Parsons that he intended to continue

working and had no intention to retire.