On April 6, HAF submitted its rejoinder to the Ninth Circuit, urging the court to lift the procedural barriers that led a district judge to toss out their suit. The foundation argues that the lower court sidestepped the substantive claims, leaving unaddressed how CRD’s actions discriminate against minorities.

The controversy traces back to CRD’s lawsuit against Cisco Systems, where it alleged caste discrimination by two managers against a colleague. By publicly emphasizing ‘caste’ in its narrative, CRD has, according to HAF, reinforced harmful myths about Indian and Hindu professionals.

HAF points to the complaint’s frequent use of ‘caste’ tied specifically to South Asian employees, coupled with CRD’s earlier rhetoric portraying caste as an inherent Hindu feature. Even after editing out controversial language, CRD’s approach remains problematic, HAF asserts, as it selectively applies caste scrutiny to certain ethnic groups.

Nidhi Shah, HAF’s senior legal counsel, emphasized the stakes beyond this single case. ‘This isn’t isolated—it’s a pattern that worries Hindu, Indian, and South Asian Americans,’ she noted. Shah criticized CRD for dividing communities under the guise of protection, with ripple effects for California businesses navigating employment laws.

‘They’re enforcing on the basis of caste, pinning blame on Hinduism, and gearing up for more targets,’ Shah added. This appellate battle could redefine how civil rights agencies handle cultural discrimination claims, potentially influencing national discourse on identity and equity in corporate America.