Earlier today, the Hindu American Foundation appealed the dismissal of its case against the California Civil Rights Department (CRD), asking for review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2024, HAF and eight individual plaintiffs sued the CRD for violating the rights of Hindu Americans by disparaging Hinduism and promoting racist claims about Indian and South Asian Americans. HAF strongly believes in the merits of its case and that the District Court erred by dismissing it on procedural grounds, and thus appealed the decision.
The CRD’s stated mission is to fight discrimination in California. HAF maintains that in its quest to pursue a first-of-its kind “caste discrimination” lawsuit, the CRD flipped that laudable mission on its head by adopting the views of anti-Hindu hate groups to push harmful ideas that caste is inherent to Hinduism, caste hierarchies are part and parcel of Indian society, and casteism was imported to the US workplace by immigrants of South Asian descent. On this basis, HAF argues, the CRD took its racist, religiously-biased definition and sued two individuals for alleged caste-based employment discrimination — one of whom doesn’t identify as Hindu, and both of whom do not identify by caste.
HAF’s brief highlights Hindu teachings of oneness and the moral obligation to honor the Divine equally present within every other person. The brief also demonstrates that the CRD’s racist and prejudiced claims about Hindus and Hinduism impose harm on ethnic and religious minorities.
Commenting on the appeal, HAF Legal Director Needhy Shah stated:
“The CRD is adding fuel to a growing fire of hatred that is scorching Hindu and South Asian Americans throughout this country. By playing ‘caste cop’ instead of following their mandate, the CRD is pushing harmful and unsubstantiated tropes similar to racists online – that Hindu and South Asian Americans are inherently suspect. This makes it impossible for Hindus and South Asians to have equal opportunity in employment or any other public setting, let alone trust the CRD to advocate for their civil rights at a time of rapidly increasing hate against these groups.”
Tim Travelstead, Esq., (Shareholder, Narayan Travelstead Ku P.C.) lead counsel representing HAF and the individual plaintiffs stated:
“This is simply not how employment law functions. The CRD cannot pick a specific subset of a community, create a category that applies exclusively to that group, and file a complaint based on a protected class that does not exist under state law. The CRD’s actions could create a dangerous precedent that would have wide-reaching implications not just for Hindus, but for all Californians.”
