Infosys again faces legal action for age and gender discrimination in US

NL Correspondent
New York, Oct 8
Infosys Technologies is being sued again by a former senior employee for discrimination on the basis of age, gender and ethnicity while
hiring in the US.
The suit filed by Jill Prejean, vice-president of talent acquisition, has alleged that the company discriminated and retaliated when she
tried to point out the discriminatory actions.
Infosys' motion to dismiss the claims made by Prejean was rejected by a judge from the United States District Court Southern District
of New York. While the court rejected the grounds for dismissal of the suit by Infosys and others, it asked the defendants to file their
answer within 21 days from the date of this opinion and order. An email sent to Infosys did not receive any response till the time of the
story was filed.
According to the filings seen by Business Standard, the case has been filed against Infosys, Mark Livingston, senior VP and head of
consulting, and former partners Dan Albright and Jerry Kurtz.
According to the petition, Livingston and other partners told Prejean to not hire consultants of Indian origin, women with ‘children at
home' and candidates over or nearing 50 years of age. Prejean was hired in 2018, then 59 years old, as VP of Talent Acquisition. She
contends that as a part of acclimatising herself to the new position, she set up meetings with Infosys's partners to learn their hiring needs
and preferences.
“In these meetings, the partners allegedly expressed reluctance to hire additional consultants of Indian origin, women with children at
home, and candidates over 50 years of age,” she said. Prejean allegedly told the partners that these criteria were illegal, and most agreed
not to use the criteria in the future. “Defendants Kurtz and Albright were among the partners to whom Prejean spoke, and both allegedly
expressly stated these same discriminatory preferences —that they did not wish to hire candidates over 50 years of age, of Indian origin,
or women with children at home—to Prejean.”
“Unlike other partners, Kurtz and Albright allegedly “appeared to take” Prejean's refusal to screen applicants based on these illegal
criteria as “the beginning of a battle for control.”
Prejean is said to have told Livingston that these demands were illegal, and Livingston allegedly responded by becoming “disturbed
and angry.”
“He also allegedly threatened to remove her from her position if she did not capitulate,” said details of the court filing.
Prejean also alleges that when she raised the issue with other senior colleagues, they only reassured her that her job
was safe and these demands were illegal and unacceptable.