Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696-20/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:2000e Job Discrimination (Employment)

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

CHRISTOPHER SLAIGHT, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

TATA CONSULTANCY SERVICES, LTD, 

Defendant.

CASE NO. 15-cv-01696-YGR 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO INVALIDATE 

RELEASE AGREEMENTS

Re: Dkt. No. 371 

Plaintiffs Christopher Slaight, Seyed Amir Masoudi, and Nobel Mandili1

 bring this class 

action against defendant Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd. (“TCS”) for discrimination in 

employment practices. (Dkt. No. 246, Fourth Amended Complaint.) 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. (Id. ¶ 5.) Plaintiffs allege that TCS 

discriminated against them in their employment and/or termination practices based on race and 

national origin. (Id. ¶¶ 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.) 

 1

 On July 23, 2018, this Court granted the TCS’s motion to bifurcate from the class claims 

of plaintiff Brian Buchanan. (Dkt. No. 412.) Accordingly, the Court notes that the caption of this 

order has been revised to reflect the class action only. 

2

 Plaintiffs define “South Asian race” as referring to individuals who trace their ancestry to 

the Indian sub-continent. (4AC ¶ 1, n. 3.) 

3

 Plaintiffs define “Indian national origin” as referring to individuals born in India, or 

whose ancestors came from India. (Id.) 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 498 Filed 09/10/18 Page 1 of 5
2 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

Now before the Court is plaintiffs’ motion to invalidate release agreements between TCS 

and class members. (Dkt. Nos. 371, 442 (“Motion”).)4 Having carefully reviewed the papers and 

supplemental information submitted, as well as oral argument at the July 17, 2018 hearing, and for 

the reasons set forth more fully below, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to invalidate the 

release agreements. 

I. BACKGROUND

The background giving rise to this action is well-known and the Court will not repeat it 

here. 

Relevant to the instant motion, Steven Heldt, a terminated TCS employee, filed an initial 

EEOC charge on October 30, 2014 seeking to advance discrimination claims against TCS “on his 

own behalf, and on behalf of a class of individuals similarly affected by Tata’s discriminatory 

practices.” (See Dkt. No. 25-1.) Plaintiffs filed their initial class action complaint on April 14, 

2015. (Dkt. No. 1.) On December 27, 2017, the Court certified the following class: 

All individuals who are not of South Asian race or Indian national origin who 

were employed by [TCS] in the United States, were subject to a policy or practice 

of benching and allocation, were place in an unallocated status and were 

terminated between April 14, 2011 and December 27, 2017 and who are not 

bound by an arbitration agreement with TCS. 

(Dkt. No. 244 (“Cert. Order”)); see also Dkt. No. 412 at 16.) 

For the first time, in its answer to the fourth amended complaint filed on January 22, 2018, 

TCS asserted “release/arbitration” as an affirmative defense, averring that “[p]laintiffs’ claims are 

barred to the extent any plaintiff has released any claim or has agreed to arbitration of such 

claims.” (Dkt. No. 252 at 12.) On May 15, 2018, the deadline for completion of expert and nonexpert discovery, TCS produced 346 separation and release agreements between TCS and former 

TCS employees, 246 of which plaintiffs estimate involve class members. (See Dkt. No. 258; 

Motion at 1.) TCS later clarified that for the total group of involuntarily terminated local 

employees, it had located 344 release agreements and for the group of those employees who were 

 4

 Plaintiffs’ initially filed a redacted version of their motion at Docket Number 371. 

Following and in compliance with the Court’s order on parties sealing motions at Docket Number 

414, plaintiffs re-filed the instant motion at Docket Number 442. All references to the Motion 

herein will refer to the unredacted version of the document filed at Docket Number 442. 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 498 Filed 09/10/18 Page 2 of 5
3 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

terminated due to being unallocated, TCS had located 283 release agreements. (Dkt. No. 424 ¶ 6.) 

On July 31, 2018, the Court determined that although it “was not inclined to order as 

expansive a corrective notice as plaintiffs have requested . . . . [A] corrective notice is still 

required” as was additional discovery regarding the circumstances giving rise to the releases. 

(Dkt. No. 430.) On August 9, 2018, the Court approved the parties’ proposed corrective notice 

and ordered the parties to distribute the notice no later than August 17, 2018. (Dkt. No. 469.) 

Therein, the Court advised potential members of the class who had signed release agreements with 

TCS of their status as a potential class member in the instant action and their ability to participate 

in the lawsuit despite the fact that they had signed a release agreement. (Id., Ex. A at 4.) The 

corrective notice also noted that the Court was “in the process of deciding how to address the 

payment you have already received.” (Id.) 

On August 10, 2018, and in response to the Court’s July 31, 2018 order, TCS made 

available for deposition Jeevak Sharma, who served as TCS’s human resources manager for 

employee retention and employee welfare, which included employee separations and employee 

records. (Dkt. No. 488-2, Deposition Transcript for Jeevak Sharma, (“Sharma Depo.”) at 8.) 

During his deposition, Sharma testified that the determination as to which terminated employees 

would receive an offer for a release agreement and severance payment is based on a case-by-case 

evaluation. (Id. at 16.) Sharma provided examples of specific circumstances leading to a 

severance offer, including an employee’s return from a long leave, medical issues, tenure at the 

company, or independent grievances. (Id. at 16-17.) Sharma also stated that all severance 

payments are calculated based on the employee’s wages for a particular time period and noted that 

he was not aware of any instances in which TCS calculated a severance payment based on the 

value of a legal claim that the employee may have against the company. (Id. at 36-37.) 

On August 24, 2018, and in response to the Court’s August 17, 2018 order, TCS filed a 

chart detailing “each separation agreement signed by a class member.” (Dkt. No. 488 at ECF 12.)5

 

That list contains the names of approximately 370 former employees. (See Dkt. No. 488, Ex. A 

 5

 The Court uses ECF pagination because the last two pages of the document at Docket 

Number 488 does not have any page numbers of its own. 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 498 Filed 09/10/18 Page 3 of 5
4 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

(“List of Class Releases”).) The earliest “date of agreement” for the release agreements 

referenced there in is January 29, 2009. (See id. at ECF 2.) Of the 370 agreements listed, 30 predate the filing of the initial complaint in this lawsuit of which only 19 pre-date the filing of Heldt’s 

EEOC charge. (See id.) Only 6 of the agreements post-date the Court’s December 27, 2017 

certification order. (Id. at ECF 11.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Before a class is certified in a class action, counsel for both plaintiffs and defendants may 

communicate with the putative class, ex parte, about the lawsuit. Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 

U.S. 89, 100 (1981). “Because of the potential for abuse, a district court has both the duty and the 

broad authority to exercise control over a class action and to enter appropriate orders governing 

the conduct of counsel and parties.” Id. at 100. “The prophylactic power accorded to the court 

presiding over a putative class action under Rule 23(d) is broad; the purpose of Rule 23(d)'s 

conferral of authority is not only to protect class members in particular but to safeguard generally 

the administering of justice and the integrity of the class certification process.” Retiree Support 

Grp. of Contra Costa Cty. v. Contra Costa Cty., No. 12-CV-00944-JST, 2016 WL 4080294, at *5 

(N.D. Cal. July 29, 2016) (citing O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc., No. C-13-3826 EMC, 2014 

WL 1760314, at *3 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2014)). 

In the context of class action litigation, whether pre- or post-certification, unsupervised 

communications between an employer and its workers present an acute risk of coercion and abuse. 

See Guifu Li, 270 FRD at 517; Wang v. Chinese Daily News, Inc., 236 F.R.D. 485, 490 (C.D. Cal. 

2006). “Courts applying the Gulf Oil standard have found that ex parte communications soliciting 

opt-outs, or even simply discouraging participation in a case, undermine the purposes of Rule 23 

and require curative action by the court.” Guifu Li v. A Perfect Day Franchise, Inc., 270 F.R.D. 

509, 517 (N.D. Cal. 2010). In this regard, the Court already determined that a corrective notice 

was necessary to address the inadequacy of the release agreements at issue and ordered the 

distribution of such a notice. (See Dkt. Nos. 430, 469.) 

The issue remaining is “what, if anything, should occur with respect to the payments 

already made and received.” (Dkt. No. 430.) Here, the inquiry centers on TCS’s conduct as 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 498 Filed 09/10/18 Page 4 of 5
5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

compared to the rights of the class members. The critical inflection point in this interaction is the 

Court’s December 27, 2017 certification order, which substantially clarified and expanded the 

scope of this litigation. (Cert. Order at 35 (certifying a class of an estimated 896 to 1,116 

members).) The timing and distribution of the releases at issue does not reflect a sudden or 

significant increase following certification. (See List of Class Releases at ECF 11.) Rather, only 5 

of the 370 agreements were executed on or after December 27, 2017. (Id.) Moreover, the fact that 

“[a] small number of individuals . . . brought up this lawsuit in an effort to negotiate higher 

severance pay, and TCS rejected those efforts,” supports the conclusion that prior to the December 

27, 2017 certification order, TCS did not view the instant action as a genuine issue and that the 

payments made do not represent an effort to “discourage participation in the case.” See Guifu Li, 

270 F.R.D. at 517. Nor does the Court find evidence in the record showing an affirmative attempt 

to circumvent the protections of a Rule 23 action. See, by contrast, Marino v. CACafe, Inc., No. 

16-cv-6291-YGR, 2017 WL 1540717, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 28, 2017) (finding releases invalid 

where they were “obtained by deceptive omissions of material information”) (emphasis supplied). 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES plaintiffs’ motion to 

invalidate the Release Agreements. 

This Order terminates Docket Number 371. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

September 10, 2018

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 498 Filed 09/10/18 Page 5 of 5