This is a petition to California State Legislators against declaring caste a protected category.

The Cisco Discrimination Case is central to this discussion. We want to present here some hard facts about this case

link to the case document- https://newsroom.cisco.com/documents/10157/0/MPAs+ISO+Motion+to+Strike.pdf/15a28e4c-55ee-41a2-ba0f-24f4b1868df3

1) It appears that the alleged Dalit who claims to be a victim never applied for the Head of Engineering job that he alleges he was not given. How can one get a job that one never applied for nor interviewed for?

2) Turns out that the professional who was awarded the above-mentioned job is also a Dalit. Now, are we going to take the side of one Dalit against another? How is this an example of discrimination against ‘Dalits’ that the commentary at the Council few weeks ago claimed? [Ref, court documents available publicly, Declaration 1/12/2021 ]

3) Mr Iyer's declaration shows that two Head positions in the group (including the position that alleged Dalit victim complained about) were given to a Dalit professional, way before any complaints were made.

4) After reading the publicly available court documents at https://portal.scscourt.org it turns out that Mr. Iyer, the alleged oppressor, had interviewed and hired NOT ONLY the alleged Dalit victim in the case BUT ALSO another Dalit professional who was already assigned a Head position in the project by Mr. Iyer himself!  If Mr. Iyer was assumed to be bigoted, he would not have hired either of Dalit professionals in the first place and awarded Head positions. Let’s keep in mind that both Mr. Iyer and alleged Dalit victim went to the same university and attended the same classes together. Assuming Mr Iyer knew that the alleged Dalit victim was, a Dalit -- then a bigoted hiring manager recruiting a Dalit in the case do not add up at all. (Page 1, Section II.A.11-22)

5) You and us, all of us, appreciate the Dalit’s rights to seek justice, which he did in his multiple complaints. Cisco reviewed all those complaints at every instance thoroughly, after reviewing all internal details, and processed appropriately. It was established that the Dalit victim was one of the most financially awarded professional in his team as compared to all professionals that were at par with him on all professional merits. (Ref pp 1, line 28, pp 2 line 1-7)

6) The victim Dalit plaintiff of the case alleged religious discrimination. The new information in this aspect is that both the alleged oppressor and oppressed, that means Mr. Iyer and the Dalit, belonged to the same religion, both are Hindus. Let’s keep in mind that Dalit is not a religion.

7) This case is subjudice. We all have faith in our Hon. Justice system. Because this case is subjudice, that is, the case is being investigated and processed by the courts of California, where due process is taking place. Therefore, we all should exercise caution and patience for the outcome of the case and its details.

8) In Mr. Iyer’s declaration its clear that he sacrificed 100% of his equity, worth millions of dollars, to all his employees including the Dalit before any dates of the complaints or alleged issues. Mr. Iyer is now sued for a few thousands of dollars. [Iyer's declaration Point # 8.]

9) Other publicly filed court documents also reveal that another professional who happened to be a Dalit, who was solicited, hired and was championed by Mr. Iyer, all prior to the case’s allegations, and offered the highest position in the group. .

Recommendation: We therefore recommend waiting for legitimate details to emerge, let the judiciary, the Hon. court system process take place which will extract truth for us, and until then pause this resolution to include Caste as a protected category. Once the judiciary emerge with truth, we are then free to brainstorm based on undisputed facts.

Suggestions: We should not construct a structure on unverified grounds. We exemplified how the strongest of the ‘argument’ to bring ‘Caste’ as a protected category, i.e. the Cisco caste case, has major holes in its foundation. At Cisco, clearly, the said discrimination did not happen. In fact, Mr. Iyer’s team administration would emerge as a stellar example of a human team that looks beyond all divisive constructs.

Particularly, because establishing ‘Caste’, which is a divisive instrument that has harmed India, might harm and divide people instead of connecting we all should postpone this process until some of these cases yield judicial outcome. We need to connect people and build bridges among communities. Let’s be the connecting forces and not divisive.

Best regards,

A concerned resident