Prejean v. Infosys Limited

Background

Jill Prejean alleged that Infosys hired her in October 2018 as a Vice President of Talent Acquisition and that Mark Livingston later became her direct supervisor. According to the complaint, Infosys partners and executives—including Livingston, Dan Albright, and Jerry Kurtz—expressed preferences against hiring people over 50, people of Indian origin, and women with children at home. Prejean alleged that she objected because those criteria were unlawful.

Prejean further alleged that Livingston repeatedly pressured her to follow those criteria, threatened her job, and treated her in a condescending manner. She alleged that Kurtz and Albright participated in a hostile campaign involving weekly conversations, threats, and pressure to use discriminatory hiring practices. After Prejean supported a highly qualified female candidate and reported what she viewed as gender discrimination, Infosys terminated her employment.

Prejean brought claims under Section 8-107(1)(a) of the New York City Human Rights Law for discrimination and retaliation. The opinion states that the claims included discriminatory termination and hostile work environment based on age and gender, as well as retaliatory hostile work environment claims.

The Motions to Dismiss

The defendants filed three motions to dismiss: one by Infosys and Livingston, one by Albright, and one by Kurtz. The motions invoked Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), which concerns personal jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Personal Jurisdiction

Livingston, Kurtz, and Albright argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over them. The court rejected those arguments at the pleading stage. It held that Prejean had made the required preliminary showing under New York’s long-arm statute because she alleged that the defendants engaged in relevant conduct in New York, including meetings and conversations at Infosys’s Manhattan office and contacts directed at her while she worked in New York.

The court also concluded that exercising jurisdiction complied with the Due Process Clause. Although litigating in New York would burden the out-of-state individual defendants, the court found that New York had an interest in addressing alleged discriminatory conduct occurring there, that Prejean had an interest in litigating in that forum, and that witnesses and evidence connected to the alleged events could be located there. The court therefore denied the individual defendants’ motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2).

Employment Relationship

Infosys and Livingston argued that Prejean could not bring the New York City Human Rights Law claims because she was not formally an Infosys employee. The court disagreed at this stage. It relied on Prejean’s allegations that Infosys executives interviewed and hired her, set the expectations of her position, supervised her work, and ultimately terminated her employment. The court held that these allegations were sufficient to establish an employer-employee relationship under New York law for purposes of the claims.

Discrimination and Retaliation Claims

The court held that Prejean had adequately alleged discrimination and hostile work environment claims against Infosys and Livingston. She alleged that she was a woman over 50, was qualified for her position, experienced a hostile work environment, and was terminated. The court also found that the alleged comments about excluding older candidates and women with caregiving responsibilities, the alleged replacement of Prejean by younger recruiters, and Livingston’s alleged treatment of her differently from male colleagues supported a minimal inference of discriminatory intent.

The court also held that Prejean had adequately alleged claims against Kurtz and Albright. It found that her allegations that they expressed discriminatory hiring preferences, reacted with hostility when she refused to follow them, and participated in a campaign of harassment and threats were sufficient at the motion-to-dismiss stage. The court stated that a jury could reasonably find such a campaign likely to deter a person from reporting or opposing discrimination, regardless of the defendants’ formal positions in the company hierarchy.

Disposition

The court denied all three defendants’ motions to dismiss. It directed the defendants to file an answer within 21 days after the opinion and order. Judge J. Paul Oetken did not decide whether Prejean’s allegations would ultimately be proven; the ruling determined only that the claims could proceed beyond the dismissal stage.

Note on the Provided Metadata

The supplied metadata identifies Laura Swain as the judge, but the opinion text identifies and is signed by J. Paul Oetken. This summary follows the judge identified in the opinion text.