Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-01696-17/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 FOR JUDGMENT 

ON THE PLEADINGS

Re: Dkt. No. 398 

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 (“4AC”).) 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. The three named plaintiffs are referred to 

herein as “Class Representatives.” 

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 470 Filed 08/10/18 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 TCS’s motion for partial judgment on the pleadings regarding the 

declaratory and injunctive relief sought by Class Representatives and the class.4 (Dkt. No. 398 

(“Motion”).) Having carefully reviewed the papers submitted, and for the reasons set forth more 

fully below, the Court DENIES TCS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings.5 

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, the Class Representatives represent 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. 412 at 16.) By 

way of the fourth amended complaint, the Class seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. (See 4AC 

at 33-34.) Specifically, the class seeks (i) a declaratory judgment that the practices of which 

plaintiffs complain are unlawful and violate Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as 

the Civil Rights Act of 1866; (ii) an injunction against TCS and its officers, agents, employees, 

and others acting in concert with them from engaging in unlawful policies, practices, customs, and 

usages as described in the complaint; (iii) an order directing TCS to adopt valid nondiscriminatory method for hiring, placement, termination, and other employment decisions; and 

 4

 The Court has reviewed the pleadings as well as the papers submitted by the parties in 

connection with TCS’s motion for judgment on the pleadings. The Court has determined that the 

motion is appropriate for decision without oral argument, as permitted by Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) 

and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. See also Lake at Las Vegas Investors Group, Inc. v. 

Pacific Malibu Dev. Corp., 933 F.2d 724, 729 (9th Cir. 1991). Accordingly, the Court VACATES

the hearing scheduled for August 14, 2018. 

5

 In connection with defendant’s reply in support of the instant motion, TCS filed an 

administrative motion to seal the last names of former non-managerial TCS employees as well as 

the phone number of named plaintiff Nobel Mandili. (Dkt. No. 436.) Finding good causes exists 

to seal this information, namely its personal nature and lack of relevance to the instant motion, the 

Court GRANTS TCS’s administrative motion and approves the proposed redactions. See 

Kamakana v. City and County of Honolulu, 447 F.3d 1172, 1179 (9th Cir. 2006). Accordingly, 

this Order terminates Docket Number 436. 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 470 Filed 08/10/18 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

(iv) an order directing TCS to post notices concerning its duty to refrain from discriminating 

against employees on the basis of race or national origin. (Id.) 

Defendant now, on the eve of trial, raises the argument that because the operative 

complaint does not include any allegation that either the Class Representatives or other members 

of the class actually requested reinstatement or sought or are actively seeking reemployment with 

TCS, TCS is entitled to judgment as to plaintiffs’ claims for injunctive relief. (Motion at 4 (citing 

4AC); see also 4AC ¶¶ 3, 49 (Slaight), ¶¶ (Masoudi), and ¶ 73 (Mandili).) 

Plaintiffs counter, with extrinsic evidence, that plaintiff Mandili and other class members 

have repeatedly sought re-employment with TCS. (Dkt. No. 420 (“Opposition”) at 1 (citing Dkt. 

No. 420-1 (“Mandili Decl.”) at ¶ 3; Dkt. No. 420-2 (“Bedeiwi Decl.”) at ¶ 3).) Plaintiffs further 

assert that TCS engaged in a practice of “prohibiting third-party recruiters from submitting 

applications on behalf of former employees, promptly rejecting direct applications from former 

employees, and even banning persistent former employees from submitting online applications.”6 

(Id. at 2 (citing Mandili Decl. ¶ 4).) TCS replies that Class Representatives failed to describe or 

otherwise identify any plans to resume employment with TCS in their declarations in support of 

class certification, in their responses to TCS’s interrogatories and document requests, or during 

their depositions.7 (Dkt. No. 435 (“Reply”) at 10-13.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a plaintiff to place a defendant on 

notice of the claims at issue. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8. Rule 12(c) allows a party to move for 

judgment on the pleadings “[a]fter the pleadings are closed – but early enough not to delay 

 6

 TCS seeks to strike these later statements as inadmissible hearsay pursuant to Rule 802 

of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Reply at 12 n.7.) Given the Court’s ruling, the Court need not 

consider these statements so the objection is moot. 

7

 Given the apparent factual nature of the inquiry TCS requests of the Court and both 

parties’ reliance on documents that fall outside of the pleadings, the substance of TCS’s motion is 

much more appropriate for summary judgment. Despite the fact that TCS has been aware from 

the beginning of this lawsuit of plaintiffs’ intent to pursue injunctive and declaratory relief, TCS’s 

motion for summary judgment, filed January 31, 2017, fails to mention the issue of standing or 

address the injunctive and declaratory relief sought by plaintiffs. (See Dkt. No. 106.) 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 470 Filed 08/10/18 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

trial[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (emphasis supplied). “A judgment on the pleadings is properly 

granted when, taking all the allegations in the pleading as true, the moving party is entitled to 

judgment as a matter of law.” See Or. Laborers-Emp’rs Health & Welfare Tr. Fund v. Philip 

Morris, Inc., 185 F.3d 957, 963, 967-69 (9th Cir. 1999). Where a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings is based upon an apparent lack of subject matter jurisdiction, it will be evaluated under 

the standard applicable to a motion under Rule 12(b)(1). See Drazich v. Mabus, No. 5:13-cv03931-BLF, 2014 WL 2069474, at *6 (N.D. Cal. May 16, 2014); see also Diamond v. Corizon 

Health, Inc., No. 16-cv-03534-JSC, 2016 WL 7034036, * 11 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 2, 2016). 

TCS argues that because the “four corners of the [4AC] do not contain any allegations 

pertaining to reinstatement, or requests for reinstatement[,] . . . neither the Class nor the Class 

Representatives, can reasonably be expected to benefit from any prospective [injunctive] relief 

ordered against TCS [and, therefore,] there is no viable basis for an injunction.” (Motion at 4 

(emphasis supplied).) Specifically, TCS avers that plaintiffs’ pleading fails to demonstrate that 

they would benefit from an injunction, and therefore fails to show Article III standing for their 

claims for injunctive relief because “[a] plaintiff who cannot reasonably be expected to benefit 

from prospective relief ordered against the defendant has no claim for an injunction.” (Id. at 3 

(citing Bayer v. Neiman Marcus Grp., 861 F.3d 853, 865 (9th Cir. 2017); Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. 

Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 364-65 (2011); Walsh v. Nev. Dep’t of Human Res., 471 F.3d 1033, 1036-37 

(9th Cir. 2006).) 

Fundamentally, the complaint, both in its operative form as the 4AC and in its original 

form, filed April 15, 2015, put TCS on notice of plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief, and 

apparently, the issue was litigated. (See Dkt. No. 435-1 (“La Mar Decl.”) ¶¶ 4-20 (detailing the 

deposition of and interrogatories and production requests regarding Class Representatives).) Had 

this motion been brought at the outset of the litigation, the pleading issue could have been 

resolved. 8 As shown by the plaintiffs’ declarations, the Court cannot, at this late juncture, 

 8

 Each of the cases to which TCS cites in support of its argument that plaintiffs lack 

standing to pursue the injunctive and declaratory relief sought are distinguishable based on the 

timing of relevant motion. See e.g., Walsh, 471 F.3d at 1035 (holding that trial court properly 

granted defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings as to injunctive relief filed twenty-one 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 470 Filed 08/10/18 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

consider the omissions in the pleadings as having established some fact. Instead, the motion 

reveals a hail-Mary effort at limiting the scope of relief. The instant motion is not only untimely, 

but also constitutes a back-door attempt by TCS to re-litigate the issue of certification. The Court 

ordered a deadline of May 29, 2018 for TCS’s motion for decertification, and TCS so filed. (See

Dkt. Nos. 312; 335.) TCS raised the issue of standing for injunctive relief in passing in its motion 

for decertification, but failed to succeed. TCS filed the instant motion, nearly a month and a half 

after the Court’s deadline for the decertification motion, which essentially reiterates TCS’s 

argument in its decertification motion that the Class Representatives are not adequate 

representatives as to the declaratory and injunctive relief sought by the class. (See Motion at 1; 

Dkt. No. 335 at 19-20.) The Court denied TCS’s motion for decertification on July 23, 2018. 

(Dkt. No. 412.) TCS could have also raised the issue at the summary judgment stage and failed to 

do so. 

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES TCS’s motion for partial 

judgment on the pleadings. 

This terminates Docket Numbers 398 and 436. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 10, 2018 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

 

days after filing of operative complaint); see also Dukes, 564 U.S. at 364-365 (discussing the issue 

of standing for injunctive relief raised by defendants in opposition to class certification); Bayer, 861 F.3d at 865 (finding that plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief is moot based on his status as a 

former employee in response to defendant’s motion for summary judgment). 

Case 4:15-cv-01696-YGR Document 470 Filed 08/10/18 Page 5 of 5