Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 1 of 22 PageID #: 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION

ERIN GREEN '

'
Plaintiff, '
§
v. ' CIVIL ACTION NO. __________
'
INFOSYS, LTD. '
'
'
Defendant. ' JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Erin Green, complaining of Defendant Infosys, Ltd. (“Infosys”), would show as

follows:

Parties

1. Plaintiff is a white male.

2. Infosys is a legal entity which may be served with process through its registered agent

for service of process in Texas, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Suite 900, Dallas, Texas

75201.

Jurisdiction And Venue

3. Jurisdiction on Plaintiff’s federal law claim under 42 U.S.C. §1981 is and § 1981a

and 2000 et seq. conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. '1331.

4. Venue for all causes of action is appropriate in this District and Division pursuant to

28 U.S.C. '1391 because all of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims made in this

Complaint took place within this District and Division.

COMPLAINT – Page 1
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 2 of 22 PageID #: 2

Facts

5. Infosys is a multi-billion-dollar Indian firm, the stock of which is publicly traded on

the NASDAQ and other global exchanges, that maintains a global workforce of approximately

180,000 to 300,000 employees. Infosys maintains roughly 200,000 employees working in the United

States. While roughly 1% of the U. S. population is of the South Asian race and national origin,

roughly 93%-94% of Infosys’s United States workforce is of the South Asian national origin

(primarily Indian). This disproportionately South Asian and Indian workforce, by race and national

origin, is a result of Infosys’s intentional employment discrimination against individuals who are not

South Asian, including discrimination in the hiring, promotion, compensation and termination of

individuals. Infosys has gone to great lengths to obtain its primarily South Asian work force in the

U. S., in particular by utilizing professional H-1B and L-1 work visas to bring South Asians

(primarily Indians) into the United States to work in information technology (“IT”) consulting roles,

as its IT consulting business model dictates, and other non-IT capacities, including to replace or

supplant non-South Asians. Plaintiff’s career at Infosys exemplifies the systematic pattern of

discrimination at Infosys.

6. Little question exists that Infosys discriminates. As an Infosys hiring manager

recently acknowledged: “There does exist an element of discrimination. We are advised to hire

Indians because they will work off the clock without murmur and they can always be transferred

across the nation without hesitation unlike [a] local workforce.” Another law suit against Infosys

this time regarding hiring, Sathiyam.TV (Aug. 6, 2013), http://sathiyam.tv/english/world/another-

law-suit-against-infosys-this-time-regarding-hiring. In addition, an ongoing federal class action

discrimination suit brought by four non-South Asian plaintiffs in Minnesota exemplifies the

COMPLAINT – Page 2
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 3 of 22 PageID #: 3

systematic internal protocol of distrust and career opportunity for non-South Asians. The suit

alleges Infosys “has engaged in a systematic pattern and practice of discriminating against non-

South Asian employees.” Koehler et al v. Infosys Ltd. ¶¶ 6, 96 Case Number 13-CV-885-pp. Data

subpoenaed in Koehler of its U. S. workforce from 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2016 illustrates the

overwhelming dis-proportionate percentage of non-Asians being involuntarily terminated and not

given promotions. Docket #116 Exhibit 28 (attached at Exhibit A)

7. From October 2011 to June 28, 2016, Plaintiff was employed by Defendant in Plano,

Texas. Plaintiff’s experience with Infosys demonstrates the discriminatory nature of Infosys’s

employment practices. In 2011, a U.S. Department of Justice investigation stemming from illegal

immigration allegations by whistleblower Jay Palmer, a non-South Asian employee, prompted

Infosys to hire dozens of non-South Asian, United States employees in various human resource

positions. Many of these roles were medium to high level managerial and/or subject matter expert

positions. Plaintiff was hired as the Defendant’s immigration compliance practice lead, serving in

the newly constructed United States human resources department, in Plano, Texas. Plaintiff was

assigned the vital task of analyzing and rectifying all H-1B, L-1, I-9 and other U.S. immigration-

compliance-related issues. The H-1B visa allows U.S. companies to send foreign professional

workers to the United States, and is utilized by Infosys to import tens of thousands of IT consultants

on an annual basis. The L-1 visa allows multi-national corporations to transfer foreign workers to

the U.S., and is utilized by Infosys to supplant thousands of its own foreign workers in the U.S. to

perform IT consultancy and other non-IT corporate business enabling roles (human resources,

finance, recruiting, facilities, legal, etc.).

8. Plaintiff’s first few years with Defendant showcase an extremely talented, dedicated,

knowledgeable and exemplary employee with a bright career. He reported to two non-South Asian

COMPLAINT – Page 3
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 4 of 22 PageID #: 4

United States supervisors who appreciated his expertise and dedication. In addition to shoring up

various U.S. immigration compliance practices and implementing vital protocols which saved

Defendant millions to billions of dollars in potential fines and lost revenue, Plaintiff quickly gained

various accolades and his problem-solving initiatives and accomplishments were widely appreciated

by his supervisors, subordinates, and other colleagues in the U. S. Within weeks of joining

Defendant, Plaintiff was named a member of the human resources leadership team. Within a few

short months, Plaintiff’s supervisors asked him to take over the United States Immigration

Operations (“USIO”) team which was in disarray and was triple the size of his initial Compliance

team. Plaintiff was also asked to help work on and solve other non-immigration related human

resources issues and problems and was sent by his supervisors to India and Canada to work on

various immigration related issues. In addition, Plaintiff was entrusted with building, structuring

and overseeing an internal U.S. immigration team which he built, and eventually consisted of

between 36 to 55 members. As head of this team, Plaintiff pioneered and created a United States

immigration help desk to engage with the large U. S. workforce, a dedicated and effective RFE team,

which saved Infosys millions of dollars by filing successful RFE responses and appeals regarding

denied L-1 and H-1B applications, and a full-service I-9 team to ensure strict I-9 compliance

protocol, in addition to expanding the existing USIO and Immigration Compliance teams Plaintiff’s

other major accomplishments included pioneering in-person immigration roadshows at U.S client

sites which served to interface with Infosys employees and managers, providing advice, and

checking on client specific immigration compliance issues, introducing a new remote I-9 program

which has saved the company hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars to date, redefining and

implementing strict professional review processes and models for H-1B & other U.S. work visa

petitions, working on various internal investigations and issues with Infosys’ employee relations

COMPLAINT – Page 4
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 5 of 22 PageID #: 5

team and in-house employment lawyers, and successfully leading various government audit and

internal client audits, without any government infraction relating to Infosys’ United States

immigration program during his tenure. Plaintiff also diligently represented Infosys at trade

conferences and government events and in Capitol Hill lobbying efforts, and partnered with Infosys’

internal operations managers and executives to resolve a wide range of specific immigration issues.

9. In mid-2012, Plaintiff had been permanently assigned the USIO role, saving Infosys

the cost of hiring another immigration manager at his level. Plaintiff approached his non-South

Asian supervisor, the vice-president of human resources, Americas, and asked for a 30% raise. She

supported the salary increase but explained that she had no power to grant raises and advised him to

consult with Defendant’s chief compliance officer. It took Plaintiff approximately nine months of

follow-ups and negotiation to receive an approximate $30,000 base salary raise, which had to be

signed off by the board of directors of Infosys in India. In conjunction with the increase, Plaintiff

was promoted to head of global immigration in June 2013.

10. In July 2013, the onshore U.S. Immigration function was moved from the United

States human resources group to Defendant's Global Immigration (“GI”) team, at which time

Plaintiff began reporting to Defendant, Vasudeva Nayak (“Nayak”), head of GI. Nayak reported to

Binod Hampapur (“Hampapur”), executive vice president and global head of talent and technology

operations of Infosys. Nayak and Hampapur are both of the South Asian race and Indian national

origin, and both were at all relevant times employed by Infosys in India.

11. After the transfer to supervision by Nayak, even though Plaintiff was the highest or

second highest-ranking member of the GI team (Plaintiff and Nayak were both Level 7 at the time of

transfer), Plaintiff was subjected to discriminatory measures of increasing severity designed to

undermine both his position and his professional credibility within Defendant. Nayak promptly

COMPLAINT – Page 5
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 6 of 22 PageID #: 6

began stripping Plaintiff of his immigration “operations” responsibilities and transitioning or

maintaining these roles with less experienced, lower level South Asian employees in India, (for

example, Raghuraman Venugopalan and Prasana Aravamudhan) or peer level South Asian managers

in India who were consistently added to the U.S. team without no prior US Immigration experience

(including Meera Rajeevan and Sandeep Musalgaonkar). For instance, despite Infosys touting a 36

member U.S. subject matter expert immigration team in Plano, Texas, the non-subject matter expert

offshore team in India was tasked with setting United States immigration policy, providing United

States immigration exceptions to Infosys IT managers and employees in the U.S., and controlling

United States immigration communications (in most instances, without Plaintiff’s knowledge or

participation).

12. Nayak told Plaintiff on multiple occasions to concentrate 100% of his time on

compliance and to withdraw from operations at Infosys, thus eliminating at least half of his

responsibilities, as Head of Immigration. Nayak also consistently restructured Plaintiff’s U.S. team

without Plaintiff’s knowledge or his input. The reason for this alleged preferred focus on

compliance, not operations, was not explained by Nayak, except on occasion when Nayak

erroneously claimed Plaintiff’s compliance responsibilities were lacking.

13. Nayak also set vague performance goals that were virtually impossible for Plaintiff

and his subordinate U.S. subordinateteam members to achieve. For example, Plaintiff was told that

Plaintiff and his team must have “100% approvals with no rejections” for the 10,000 to 15,000

annual H-1B visa applications, and the 1,000 to 3,000 annual L-1 visa applications, an impossible

task given the number of visas requested per year. Despite Plaintiff’s stellar initiatives and

improvement on many United States operational and compliance issues, Nayak continued to criticize

and disparage Plaintiff publicly and privately.

COMPLAINT – Page 6
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 7 of 22 PageID #: 7

14. Nayak otherwise repeatedly restructured the team Plaintiff was leading, again without

Plaintiff’s knowledge or input. In a prime example of subversion of his authority (and a pattern of

behavior at Infosys that Plaintiff witnessed happening to Plaintiff’s first non-South Asian boss),

Nayak ordered Plaintiff to implement a new team structure without his input, which placed Mithun

Hande, Plaintiff’s subordinate, and an L-1 visa worker who Nayak placed on Plaintiff’s USIO team

from India, also of the South Asian race and Indian national origin, in sole control of the USIO team,

the largest team group under Plaintiff. Hande was the only team member that Nayak had “rotated”

into the United States who was exempt from Nayak’s stringent 18-month rotation policy, and acted

as Nayak’s contact and “mole” in the United States, constantly undermining Plaintiff’s authority.

Nayak surreptitiously consulted with Hande about the performance of non-Asian peer U.S. team

members, their work loads and the merits of promoting non-Asian employees.

15. After being placed as head of GI, Plaintiff was not promoted, and no white or black

employees on Plaintiff’s teams were ever promoted, progressed, or given salary increases, even

though Plaintiff consistently advocated for their career advancement. For example, during a

conference in Boston in June 2014, Plaintiff begged Nayak to allow him to finally promote some of

his longer tenured managers, given their tireless dedication to Infosys and the fact that many of them

had served for up to four years, without a single promotion. Nayak’s response was “not everyone

can be CEO” and further opined that the only way to obtain a promotion at Infosys was “to entertain

more role and responsibility.” This attitude exemplifies the “catch 22” scenario that existed within

the and GI team, as only South Asians were given more responsibility by Nayak and promoted, thus

shutting out non-South Asians from career advancement. Several South Asian employees who

reported to Plaintiff also were given salary increases, even though Plaintiff had no contemporaneous

knowledge of these changes.

COMPLAINT – Page 7
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 8 of 22 PageID #: 8

16. In addition, Nayak consistently lowered performance evaluation scores that Plaintiff

gave to white and black team members, thereby also eliminating any possibility of promotion for

these employees. Non-Indian team members with even the highest possible ranking (1+) were not

offered a promotion. On one occasion, Nayak lowered Plaintiff’s performance score that he had

given to his subordinate black employee from a “1” to a “3” without any justification. Plaintiff

sought a compromise with Nayak who held firm. It took an official internal complaint by the

employee, and a subsequent panel to change the score to a “2”. Prior to his complaints and despite

being the second highest ranking member on the GI team, Plaintiff was never invited to participate

in the quarterly “promotion process” whereby his lower level “peer” managers in India were asked

to nominate people on their team for promotion and progressions and collectively provide rankings

for those nominated. In fact, Plaintiff never contemporaneously knew this collective ranking process

existed. In addition, the GI team in India was always seeking and/or directed to copy the work of

their subject matter expert counterparts in the U.S. Nayak consistently sought to transfer job

responsibility from U.S. non-South Asian team members to South Asian immigration team members

both in India and in the U.S.

17. Nayak also altered Plaintiff’s subordinate managers’ reporting structure without

Plaintiff’s input or knowledge, mandating that these managers have additional “dotted line

reporting” responsibility to lower level GI team members in India. Two examples include the

manager of Plaintiff’s pioneering U.S. help desk, and the manager of Plaintiff’s green card team.

The green card team manager was very emotional and irate that responsibility and oversight of the

green card team would fall to an Indian employee in India with little to no green card expertise

instead of herself, a seasoned, senior United States green card immigration paralegal with over 25

years of experience who had dedicated four years to improving the Infosys Green Card program.

COMPLAINT – Page 8
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 9 of 22 PageID #: 9

On a particular trip to Plano by Nayak, Plaintiff consoled his subordinate manager and plead with

Nayak not to take such a decision, to no avail. Nayak also disinvited Plaintiff to managerial meetings

and, at times spoke Hindi in front of Plaintiff and his subordinates to other south-Asian team

members and colleagues.

18. Nayak repeatedly belittled Plaintiff’s managerial authority and immigration expertise,

as demonstrated in emails and calls with Plaintiff’s subordinates and various other Infosys

departments. For example, Nayak once emailed Plaintiff’s subordinate and (“RFE”) team manager,

asking why Plaintiff “is wasting others’ time” and that “his contribution to the operations team is not

there.” On one of Nayak’s visits to the United States, he disrespected and belittled Plaintiff in front

of his entire team. Several of Plaintiff’s subordinate team members expressed their shock and

discomfort to Plaintiff regarding the conduct they had witnessed, including his Labor Conditions

Applications/Public Access Files (“LCA/PAF Compliance”) team manager, and a junior member of

the RFE team. In addition, Plaintiff and his non-South Asian team members were often unable to

access a number of Infosys’ immigration and other related platforms and data. In many instances,

Plaintiff had to obtain the needed information from his Indian subordinates, or make repeated

requests to gain access from their GI teammates in India.

19. In June 2015, Nayak tried to further undermine Plaintiff’s managerial authority by

monitoring Plaintiff and his team’s work hours from India through a separate computerized

“physical badge swiping” process which was not in line with Infosys corporate policy in the United

States.

20. Further, Nayak consistently discouraged or prevented Plaintiff from communicating

with other leaders in the Infosys organization, including Brent Reiley, senior vice-president and

immigration legal counsel, and Vishal Sikka, chief executive officer of Infosys, despite Infosys’s

COMPLAINT – Page 9
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 10 of 22 PageID #: 10

written “open door policy” regarding communications, and Mr. Sikka’s open communication style.

In addition, he curbed Plaintiff’s ability to send out immigration communications to the U.S.

employee population, without approval from himself or lower level GI teammates offshore. When

Reiley travelled to a board meeting in India with the intent of getting Nayak fired for unrelated

reasons, Nayak called Plaintiff in the middle of the night to scream at him regarding Reiley and the

failed attempt, and accused Plaintiff of conspiring with Mr. Reilly. Plaintiff had not conspired nor

supported this attempt to remove Nayak.

21. In March 2015, Plaintiff filed an internal discrimination complaint, alleging

discrimination against him and his subordinate team member, based on his race and national origin

and the race and national origin of his subordinates. Patty Cramer, head of employee relations in the

United States, memorialized Plaintiff’s complaint in writing and informed Plaintiff that the

complaint would be sent to her superior, Naranjapan, in India, but otherwise be kept confidential.

Plaintiff suspected that this would not be the case, and that both Nayak and Hampapur would

quickly know about the complaint against them. Plaintiff adamantly plead for his complaint to be

handled in the United States, to no avail. Cramer also stated that Naranjapan would specifically

follow-up with Plaintiff regarding his internal complaint. In contrast to the explicit protections and

“seriousness” with which Defendant purportedly treated such complaints both noted in its internal

policies and annual report to shareholders, no Infosys official ever followed up with Plaintiff

regarding this serious complaint.

22. In August 2015, Nayak responded to Plaintiff’s complaint by giving Plaintiff his

lowest performance rating during his four-year tenure, citing that Plaintiff needed to “focus more

on…operational issues” despite his prior repeated orders that Plaintiff withdraw from an operational

focus. The internal performance score was originally not accompanied by any customary reviewer

COMPLAINT – Page 10
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 11 of 22 PageID #: 11

notes and feedback, nor did Plaintiff have the customary oral discussion with Nayak at the proper

time regarding this particular performance period. Plaintiff later appealed this score to a three-person

panel, but no resolution was ever disseminated to Plaintiff. In addition, Nayak was secretly building

a “shadow” U.S. Immigration compliance team in India, which Plaintiff’s subordinate head of his

compliance team found out about inadvertently in the form of offshore organizational charts he came

across and a document assigning certain U.S. immigration law compliance duties that Plaintiff had

theretofore been accountable for to an offshore team without his knowledge. In essence, Plaintiff

was discriminated against by the reduction of responsibilities and then retaliated against when

Plaintiff complained of discrimination by being told he was not performing the responsibilities that

were taken away by the original discriminatory behavior. In addition, on a conference call while

Plaintiff was out of the office, Nayak verbally assaulted and berated Plaintiff’s white subordinate

RFE team manager in the presence of most of her peers in the United States and other Indian

colleagues who attended the call. The RFE team manager was driven to tears and filed an internal

complaint against Nayak.

23. In addition, Nayak also shut down Plaintiff’s U.S.immigration roadshows at Infosys

client sites, which Plaintiff designed and initiated to provide face to face U.S. immigration

compliance checks and discussion as well as support and solutions to Infosys employees and

managers in the United States facing immigration and visa-related issues. The highly popular

roadshows became one of the most effective customer service initiatives in the United States, and its

widespread appeal and effectiveness had garnered praise from every single delivery vertical, and all

U.S. human resources personnel. Usually accompanied by a subordinate team member, Plaintiff had

personally visited over 100 client sites in the U.S. in a two-year period. Even though all funding for

the roadshows came from the client sites delivery leaders, Plaintiff was told by Nayak that he was no

COMPLAINT – Page 11
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 12 of 22 PageID #: 12

longer allowed to put on these shows. He had to immediately turn down a request from the Bank of

America group who sought to secure an auditorium for Plaintiff to speak to an expected crowd of

approximately 1000 Infosys employees in the Charlotte area and another week-long roadshow in

New England covering various accounts, in which he would interface with approximately 1200

employees. Plaintiff was professionally embarrassed within his team, his human resources

colleagues who scheduled the roadshows, and with delivery heads and managers at client sites whom

he had built great professional rapport with over the years, as he had to turn down the events with no

plausible explanation. One human resources colleague, stated “but they cannot stop these roadshows

. . . they are not even paying for them.” Nayak later revealed that it was Hampapur who had given

him the order to prevent Plaintiff from performing the roadshows.

24. Nayak’s discriminatory interference within Plaintiff’s team also demonstrated

punishment and demotion for two long-tenured Indian subordinates of Plaintiff. Proving that the

concept of a perceived Uncle Tom applies even in the context of an Indian-dominated firm, there

were two Indians serving under Plaintiff’s United States Operations Team (one male and one

female) who were also humiliated, punished and retaliated against by Nayak simply because of their

respect for and loyalty to Plaintiff as their superior. “Any Indians on our team . . . who work with

[Plaintff] or [Reiley] who do our job are treated the same way as the whites on our team, with no

career possibility, no trust.” November 30, 3015 resignation email sent to Vishal Sikka Infosys CEO

and David Kennedy, Head of Legal & October 15, 2015 Internal Infosys Employment Complaint

(attached at Exhibit B). The male member was verbally abused and berated on at least one occasion

and effectively demoted in favor of Hande, because of Hande’s loyalty to Nayak and not Plaintiff.

Nayak prevented such member from taking a position within the legal team that was needed and

proposed by Reiley. On a trip to India, he was verbally accosted and threatened by Nayak.

COMPLAINT – Page 12
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 13 of 22 PageID #: 13

25. The female member of Plaintiff’s team, another stellar employee with a ten-year track

record of loyalty and service to Infosys, was berated to the point of tears on at least two occasions by

Nayak. In addition, Nayak refused to approve years long attempts by Plaintiff to correct her

corporate job level, and also retaliated against her by consistently threatening her return to India, in

conjunction with his prescribed 18-month rotation policy, for Indian members of Plaintiff’s team,

utilized as a reward mechanism for Indian employees to work in L-1 status in the U.S. Hande was

the only Indian that was not subject to Nayak’s rotation policy.

26. Hampapur was a catalyst in much of the discrimination and retaliation against

Plaintiff and his team. During his first visit to meet the US team in person, in Plano, Texas, Plaintiff

organized a group session whereby his entire team met and introduced themselves to Hampapur.

During the meeting, Plaintiff brought up two important immigration issues for discussion, and

Hampapur asked Plaintiff to email him to follow-up. Plaintiff wrote to Hampapur and never

received a response. The few communications Plaintiff had with Hampapur were never pleasant.

Hampapur did not allow for replacements of U.S. immigration team members when they dwindled.

On one occasion when the United States inside counsel ordered that the Plaintiff’s team’s dwindling

numbers be replenished as represented to the Department of Justice during negotiations leading to

Infosys’ $34 million dollar settlement, Hampapur made sure that the new United States employees

received the lowest possible job level and salary, in contradiction to Infosys’s own global

compensation model, which called for salaries and levels to be determined based on, among other

things, experience. In fact, the Infosys recruiting team had already done their customary assessment

of the new employees with corresponding salaries. Hampapur unjustifiably called Plaintiff

“insubordinate” in a December 19, 2014 email with other corporate leaders. Subsequently, Plaintiff

was disinvited from attending the annual Strategy & Action Planning conference in Mysore, India.

COMPLAINT – Page 13
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 14 of 22 PageID #: 14

In addition, in demoralizing remarks, Hampapur reminded Plaintiff’s team that U.S. immigration

compliance “could be done from India.” He also informed one of Plaintiff’s subordinate managers

that the U.S. Immigration Operations team’s work could be done from India, and went so far as to

state the same in an email to the Plaintiff.

27. With no response from India to his complaint, as promised, and the hostile,

discriminatory work environment created by Nayak and Hampampur now adding a heightened level

of retaliation, Plaintiff sought help from the United States legal team with, whom he and his team

had traditionally maintained a good working relationship. Prior to August 2015, Plaintiff discussed

the roadshow issue and some of his complaints concerning Nayak with David Kennedy, chief legal

officer of Infosys, and Rachel Evans, a subordinate on Kennedy’s legal team. On a conference call,

Kennedy instructed Evans to discuss the roadshow issue with Hampapur on her upcoming trip to

India. However, no resolution ever came about. In August 2015, Evans flew to Plano to further

discuss Plaintiff’s issues. Plaintiff held a meet and greet session for Evans and introduced his entire

US team. The same night, Evans took Plaintiff to dinner and listened to all the issues that he and the

team was having. In addition, Plaintiff asked Evans if his immigration team could be moved back

under U.S. human resources, or alternatively under inside counsel, to rectify the situation. Evans

presented hope to Plaintiff and asked him to research the issue with respect to Infosys competitors’

immigration teams. She also stated that Kennedy was considering a change. Plaintiff provided the

information on competitors, but no change was made. The next day Evans posted a signup sheet

with time slots to speak to any immigration team members who wanted to discuss any issues.

Knowing of the frustrations that existed for some time within his team, Plaintiff encouraged team

members to speak to the legal team as he felt that finally Infosys was going to help solve the

lingering problems. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, Evans and Reiley were asking Plaintiff’s

COMPLAINT – Page 14
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 15 of 22 PageID #: 15

subordinates about Plaintiff’s managerial style and effectiveness and their opinions of Plaintiff.

During this same trip to Plano, Evans and/or Reiley also met with a local law firm, Jones Day, in the

Dallas area for an undisclosed reason. Plaintiff was under the mistaken belief that Evans and

Reiley came to Dallas to rectify the employment situation. Plaintiff later uncovered the ulterior

motive for the trip and the hiring of Jones Day.

28. In late August or early September of 2015, Plaintiff called Evans and explained that

he could no longer take the abuse and hostile work environment created by Nayak and Hampapur,

and that he was going to file a complaint with employee relations. Evans stated that Plaintiff had

every right to file a complaint, but that she was already bringing in Jones Day to conduct an

investigation into these employment issues.

29. On September 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed an internal complaint with Infosys' employee

relations team, complaining of the following: (1) Nayak’s usurpation of his duties and decision-

making authority and reassignment of these duties to less qualified employees of South Asian race

and national origin; (2) Nayak’s micromanagement of his team from abroad or through one of

Plaintiff’s subordinates; (3) Nayak’s non-inclusion of Plaintiff in immigration policy making

decisions; (4) Nayak’s favoring of teammates of South Asian race and national origin; (5) Nayak’s

demeaning of Plaintiff’s stature and abilities within Defendant; (6) Nayak’s non-responsiveness to

Plaintiff’s emails; (7) Plaintiff’s inability to obtain lack of promotion for his black and white

subordinates as compared to subordinates of South Asian race and national origin; and (8) Nayak’s

retaliation against Plaintiff when Plaintiff complained about his discriminatory conduct against

Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s black and white subordinates. A few days later Evans by phone and Reiley

in person held a group discussion with the United States immigration team and explained that Jones

Day would be coming to conduct a “fair and unbiased investigation to look into “YOUR

COMPLAINT – Page 15
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 16 of 22 PageID #: 16

complaints.” When asked, Evans also stated that the team could bring emails or documents “if they

wanted to present them.”

30. Plaintiff initially felt relieved that Infosys was finally going to conduct an

investigation into his and his team’s complaints. Instead, the investigation became a witch-hunt

focused primarily against Plaintiff. From mid, to-late September 2015, Plaintiff and his team

(including contractors) were interviewed by no less than six or seven attorneys from Jones Day.

Plaintiff could not initially understand why the US team’s 15-17 contractors, who had no interaction

or connection to Nayak and Hampapur, were also being interrogated, and why participation was

mandatory for the entire team. Each team member was interviewed by one to two Jones Day

attorneys for various lengths of times, with most being interviewed for an hour or less.

31. Unlike his peers, Plaintiff was interrogated by four Jones Days attorneys for two full

days, including Matt Orwig, Sean Cleveland, Laura Jane Durfee and Brian Jorgensen. Orwig and

Cleveland, two white collar criminal, fraud and qui tam defense attorneys, led most of the

interrogation, but the other employment attorneys also took turns asking questions. When one lawyer

asked questions, another was typing everything word for word, while the other two listened took

notes and jumped in with additional and follow-up questions. Plaintiff felt shocked and

flabbergasted by the blitzkrieg and felt like he was in a deposition or trial, as he was getting grilled

harder and harder as the hours went on. Plaintiff answered all questions and provided some emails

that he had brought with him. Plaintiff stated that he had many more emails printed that he would

give them after they interviewed Nayak. Orwig reiterated that Plaintiff would need to turn over all of

the emails immediately during the first day of Plaintiff’s two-day interrogation. Before questioning

began, Orwig stated, that he did not appreciate Plaintiff’s “gamesmanship.” In addition, the lawyers

were asking questions that had had no connection to employment issues. For instance, Durfee asked

COMPLAINT – Page 16
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 17 of 22 PageID #: 17

repeated probing questions regarding Sarbanes-Oxley. In addition, in many instances the lawyers

asked a lot of “don’t you think?” questions, implying that Nayak was simply a bad manager to

everyone or that Plaintiff’s behavior spurred Nayak’s actions, and tried to elicit affirmative

responses by Plaintiff that would document his agreement with alternate theories for Nayak and

Hampapur’s behavior, other than discrimination and retaliation.

32. Towards the end of the second day of interrogation, the matter of turning over the

remaining printed emails that the Plaintiff had in his possession was again brought up. Cleveland

began bullying Plaintiff for the other emails, stating that if Plaintiff did not give them the printed

emails, Plaintiff would be “impeding their investigation,” and repeatedly stated that Plaintiff would

be subject to punishment and termination.

33. Feeling shocked, bullied and confused, Plaintiff finished the interrogation with Jones

Day on a Tuesday or Wednesday and called Evans from the Infosys legal team for support and

guidance. Evans offered no support and completely turned on Plaintiff as if he committed a crime.

Even though Evans and many other employees worked from home, Evans immediately asked

Plaintiff why he had emails at home and demanded that Plaintiff provide Jones Day with all printed

emails immediately. That same night Plaintiff contacted one of the Jones Day attorneys and agreed

to hand over the emails, which he did. Nevertheless, the next morning Evans called Plaintiff and

surprisingly demanded that his laptop computer be turned over to Jones Day by Friday. Feeling

even more bewildered, Plaintiff asked why this was necessary. Evans replied that Plaintiff “may

have other emails that were pertinent to the investigation”. Plaintiff agreed, but then asked if Evans

was taking every team members’ computer as well. Plaintiff stated that there could also be vital

emails on any computer and even Nayak’s computer. Evans replied that they would take whatever

was needed for the investigation. Plaintiff told Evans that he did not feel comfortable during this

COMPLAINT – Page 17
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 18 of 22 PageID #: 18

investigation, that Jones Day was asking about matters that were not germane to the investigation

and that he felt bullied. Evans replied snipingly: “I’m sorry that you feel that way, and we will need

your laptop on Friday.” Two days later (Friday morning), Evans sent an email to the entire U.S.

immigration team stating that everyone must turn in their computers by the end of the day. Team

members were confused, worried, and upset. Jones Day attorneys showed up on Friday with

employees from XACT Forensic Data Discovery to coordinate the retrieval of all of the team’s

laptops. Plaintiff heard one of his subordinates state that this was a ‘’witch hunt.” A senior member

of Plaintiff’s I-9 team was so upset, he purposely ignored and walked away from a Jones Day

attorney that was trying to communicate with him. Others were just as furious. When the Plaintiff

turned over his computer, the XACT employee asked him if he also used a desktop computer.

Plaintiff replied that he did not utilize a desktop computer. The laptops were returned to the team

promptly by Sunday or Monday.

34. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, a new government-whistleblower investigation

spurred by a silent whistleblower against Infosys regarding immigration compliance was underway.

Infosys, which never addressed Plaintiff and his team’s complaints before, cleverly masked their

search for a government whistleblower with a purported investigation to look into the U.S.

immigration team’s employment “complaints.” Evans had lied to the entire U.S. immigration team

regarding the purpose or at least the dual purpose of the Jones Day investigation. The investigation

was not only retaliation against the Plaintiff, but given the overwhelming disparity in Plaintiff’s

treatment during the interrogations, also targeted the Plaintiff as the suspected whistleblower

responsible for the government investigation. Plaintiff was not the government whistleblower.

35. In December 2015, Plaintiff was asked to again meet with Jones Day attorneys.

Cleveland asked questions while Durfee typed the conversation. The meeting began with some

COMPLAINT – Page 18
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 19 of 22 PageID #: 19

discussion of Plaintiff’s original employment concerns. Cleveland stated that they had looked at

promotion statistics and implied that he did not feel there was discrimination. Cleveland asked other

leading and second-guessing questions related to the employment complaints. For instance he asked,

“Don’t you think Nayak is this way because you might have said something negative to your team

about him or let off steam about him?” The final line of questioning had nothing to do with

employment complaints, but instead asked about Plaintiff’s personal use of his work laptop

computer.

36. In June 2016, Plaintiff received an email from Patty Cramer of Employee Relations

with Defendant instructing Plaintiff to meet with Jones Day lawyers to discuss the results of their

investigation. These were false pretenses. When Plaintiff appeared for the meeting on June 28, 2016,

Cramer stated that they were not in fact meeting with Jones Day lawyers, nor discussing the outcome

of the investigation conducted by Jones Day. Instead, Cramer informed Plaintiff that he was being

terminated for violating Defendant's code of conduct by using his work computer for personal use a

number of years earlier, a fact that had been determined through the forensic imaging of his laptop

during the investigation. Plaintiff asked Cramer to identify the date of the violation and which

specific policy or part of Defendant’s handbook Plaintiff had violated, but Cramer refused or was

unable to provide Plaintiff with this information. Plaintiff was immediately escorted to the parking

lot and was unable to return to his office, nor say goodbye to his team of almost five years. Plaintiff

was not offered any severance pay. Hampapur and Reiley had come down to Plano the same day,

June 28, 2016. As Plaintiff was being terminated and quickly removed from the premises, Reiley

announced to Plaintiff’s team that Plaintiff and Nayak were “no longer with the company.”

37. Nayak’s departure from Infosys exemplifies a double standard that exists between

south Asian and non-South Asian employees at Infosys. Nayak was witnessed on Infosys internal

COMPLAINT – Page 19
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 20 of 22 PageID #: 20

communications platform with his Infosys email intact and sending emails to Plaintiff’s U.S.

immigration team at least a month after Plaintiff’s team was told he was “no longer with the

company.” On July 20, 2017, India media announced that Nayak “quit” Infosys, opting for “early

retirement”. Infosys immigration head Vasudevan Nayak quits in US election year, India Times,

ETtech (July 20, 2017). http://tech.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/people/infosys-

immigration-head-vasudeva-nayak-quits-in-us-election-year/53306953.

38. During their meeting on June 28, 2016, Cramer told Plaintiff that the purported

reasons for his termination would be kept confidential. Within a few weeks Plaintiff was alerted to

the fact that at least one member of the U.S. human resources department and at least one member of

his own U.S.immigration team had knowledge of the purported reason for his termination.

39. Plaintiff was terminated because of Defendant’s obsessional preference for

employees of South Asian race and national origin, usually Indian, and as retaliation for reporting

Nayak and Hampapur’s discriminatory treatment of himself and others on the basis of race and

national origin. His termination was in violation of Defendant’s policy which requires progressive

warnings or placement on a performance improvement plan prior to termination. Plaintiff received

no such warnings, and had no discussions with employee relations regarding any of the conduct

related to the stated reason for his termination prior to his termination. Plaintiff had no disciplinary

entries on his official work record during his four-and-a-half-year tenure.

40. The effect of the practices complained of above has been to deprive Plaintiff, and

other non-South Asian employees by either race or national origin (including all black and white

employees of American national origin) of equal employment opportunities because of race and

national origin.

41. As a result of the denial of raises, bonuses, and promotions by Defendant in favor of

COMPLAINT – Page 20
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 21 of 22 PageID #: 21

Plaintiff, and as a result of his termination of employment, Plaintiff has suffered financial and

compensatory damages. Plaintiff has also been required to incur attorney’s fees and costs of court.

Claims

42. For a first cause of action, Plaintiff would show that Defendant deprived Plaintiff of

his equal right to work because of race in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981. Plaintiff is accordingly

entitled to recover damages for back pay, front pay, other past and future pecuniary losses, emotional

pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other non-pecuniary

losses, and on account of the intentional or reckless nature of Infosys’ discrimination, punitive

damages. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs of court.

43. For a second cause of action, Plaintiff would show that Defendant subjected Plaintiff

to retaliation based upon his complaints of race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1981.

Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to recover damages for back pay, front pay, other past and future

pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of

life and other non-pecuniary losses, and on account of the intentional or reckless nature of

Defendant’s retaliation, punitive damages. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and

costs of court.

44. For a third cause of action, Plaintiff would show that Defendant subjected him to

discrimination in violation of in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000e-1 et seq. Plaintiff is accordingly

entitled to recover damages for back pay, front pay, other past and future pecuniary losses,

emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of life and other

non-pecuniary losses, and on account of the intentional or reckless nature of Defendant’s

discrimination, punitive damages. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and costs of

court.

COMPLAINT – Page 21
 Case 4:17-cv-00432-ALM Document 1 Filed 06/19/17 Page 22 of 22 PageID #: 22

45. For a fourth cause of action, Plaintiff would show that Defendant subjected Plaintiff

to retaliation based upon his complaints of race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. §2000 e-1 et

seq. Plaintiff is accordingly entitled to recover damages for back pay, front pay, other past and future

pecuniary losses, emotional pain and suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, loss of enjoyment of

life and other non-pecuniary losses, and on account of the intentional or reckless nature of

Defendant’s retaliation, punitive damages. Plaintiff is further entitled to recover attorneys’ fees and

costs of court.

46. Plaintiff demands a trial by jury.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that he be granted all relief to which he is entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Robert E. Goodman, Jr.

Robert E. Goodman, Jr.
State Bar No.08158100
Kilgore & Kilgore, PLLC
3109 Carlisle Street
Dallas, Texas 75204
(214) 969-9099 - Telephone
(214) 953-0133 - Facsimile

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF

COMPLAINT – Page 22