Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
December 27, 2017, Decided; December 27, 2017, Filed
Order Granting in Part Motion for Leave to Amend; Denying Motion to Exclude Expert Opinion; Denying Motion for Summary Judgment; Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motion for Class Certification
Dkt. Nos. 104, 106, 115, 125, 194
Plaintiffs Brian Buchanan and Christopher Slaight1 bring this putative class action against defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. ("TCS") for discrimination in employment practices. Plaintiffs bring causes of action for disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e, et seq., and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. 1981. (Dkt. No. 82, Third Amended [*2] Complaint ("TAC") ¶¶ 78-87.) Plaintiffs Buchanan and Slaight allege that TCS discriminated against them in their hiring, employment, and/or termination practices based on race and national origin. (TAC ¶¶ 1-5.) Specifically, plaintiffs claim that TCS maintains a pattern and practice of intentional discrimination in its United States workforce whereby TCS treats persons who are South Asian2 or of Indian national origin3 more favorably than those who are not South Asian or of Indian national origin. (Id.)
Four substantive motions are now before the Court, namely plaintiffs' motions for (i) leave to file a fourth amended complaint (Dkt. No. 104) and (ii) class certification (Dkt. No. 115);4 and TCS' motions (iii) to exclude the expert opinion of Dr. David Neumark (Dkt. No. 106) and (iv) for summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 125.)5 Having carefully considered the pleadings and fully-briefed motions, the hearing held on October 3, 2017, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court Orders as follows:6
1. Plaintiffs' motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint is Granted in Part as to amending to add Seyed Amir Masoudi and Nobel Mandili as named plaintiffs; Denied in Part as to adding Steven [*3] Webber.7
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 212170 *; 2017 WL 6611653
BRIAN BUCHANAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, Defendant.
Subsequent History: Appeal denied by Buchanan v. Tata Consultancy Servs., 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 7833 (9th Cir. Cal., Mar. 27, 2018)
Prior History: Heldt v. Tata Consultancy Servs., 132 F. Supp. 3d 1185, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 126131 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 18, 2015)
hiring, plaintiffs', expats, Termination, statistical, employees, disparities, Phase, class certification, variables, statistical evidence, benched, prima facie case, non-discriminatory, documents, workforce, visa, summary judgment, class period, non-South, fails, national origin, class action, Deposition, expert opinion, reasons, class member, labor market, recruiters, rebut