News

Former Infosys VP in US alleges she was told to not hire Indian-origin people, women

A New York court rejected Infosys’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by former executive Jill Prejean, who alleged that she was asked to follow discriminatory practices while hiring senior leadership.

Written by : TNM Staff

IT major Infosys has come under the scanner for allegations of discriminatory hiring practices, after the former head of talent acquisition of the company’s US operations said that she was told not to hire people of Indian origin. Former Vice President of talent acquisition Jill Prejean told a New York court that she was asked not to hire women or people over the age of 50. Jill had filed for a lawsuit against the Bengaluru-based Infosys for retaliatory termination and retaliatory hostile work environment, and the court on September 30 rejected Infosys’s motion to dismiss the case.

The suit was filed by Jill against former senior vice president and head of consulting Mark Livingston, as well as former partners Dan Albright and Jerry Kurtz. Jill was hired in 2018 to recruit “hard-to-find executives” as partners in the consulting division, MoneyControl reported. She wrote in her complaint that she found “a rampant culture of illegal discriminatory animus among the partner level executives based on age, gender and caregiver status.” She reportedly said in her complaint that Mark Livingston, when confronted about the discriminatory hiring practices, became angry and threatened to have Jill removed from the company.

Jill also alleged that there was pressure from Mark Livingston, Dan Albright and Jerry Kurtz to persuade her to discriminate while hiring employees, and that she faced harassment and hostility. Jill was later terminated from the position, following which she filed the lawsuit on the grounds that the accused broke the New York City Human Rights Law.

According to reports, Infosys has sought Jill’s plea to be dismissed on the grounds that she did not provide specific proof. However, the court rejected their motion, and has ordered the defendants to respond to the allegations in the complaint within 21 days of the order, which the court issued on September 30.

Bengaluru officials demand parental consent for interfaith weddings: A TNM investigation

Kante ki Takkar: A look inside Kamala Harris’s faltering campaign

Malayalam film makeup assistant arrested in sexual harassment case

DD News prime time: Funded by the public, against the public

Indians investing abroad more than ever before | LME EP 47 | Pooja Prasanna