The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 13, 2026, affirming the dismissal of a discrimination case against Infosys Technologies Limited, Inc. The court's decision affects four former employees who claimed the company discriminated against non-South Asians in its hiring and employment practices. The ruling is significant as it highlights the challenges plaintiffs face in proving discrimination claims, particularly when expert testimony is excluded.
The case, Brenda Koehler v. Infosys Technologies Limited, Inc. (Docket No. 25-2272), began in 2013 when Brenda Koehler and three other plaintiffs alleged that Infosys engaged in discriminatory practices against individuals who were not of South Asian descent. The plaintiffs sought to represent a class of individuals who applied for or were employed by Infosys and claimed they faced discrimination based on their race or national origin.
Infosys, an India-based technology consulting firm, employs over 190,000 people globally, with more than 20,000 in the United States. The plaintiffs—Koehler, Gregory Handloser, Kelly Parker, and Layla Bolten—either worked for or applied to work for the company. They argued that the company’s workforce demographics indicated a pattern of discrimination against non-South Asians.
The dispute escalated when the plaintiffs relied on an expert report from David Neumark, a labor economist who analyzed Infosys’s employee demographics. Neumark concluded that the employee population was disproportionately South Asian, suggesting that this disparity could not be attributed to chance. However, the district court excluded Neumark's expert testimony, ruling that his methodology was unreliable and that he lacked the necessary qualifications to conduct such an analysis.
Following the exclusion of Neumark's testimony, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, stating that without Neumark’s analysis, they could not meet the legal requirements for class action status. The court also denied the plaintiffs' request to supplement their summary judgment brief with additional demographic data from a third-party source, PeopleFluent, which the plaintiffs received late in the discovery process. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Infosys, dismissing all claims brought by the plaintiffs.
In its ruling, the Seventh Circuit, led by Judge St. Eve, upheld the district court’s decisions. The court noted, “The district court applied the proper legal framework when ruling on Infosys’s motion to exclude Neumark’s testimony.” The court emphasized that the plaintiffs had ample opportunity to present evidence supporting Neumark's methodology but failed to do so. The ruling also stated that the plaintiffs could not maintain their claims of a pattern and practice of discrimination, as they had not provided adequate evidence to support their allegations.
The court's decision reinforces the importance of expert testimony in discrimination cases and the rigorous standards that plaintiffs must meet to establish their claims. The ruling also highlights the challenges faced by individuals alleging discrimination in the workplace, particularly when their evidence relies heavily on expert analysis.
Moving forward, this ruling may deter similar claims against Infosys and other companies facing allegations of discrimination. It underscores the necessity for plaintiffs to present solid, reliable evidence to support their claims, particularly in cases involving complex statistical analyses.
As for the plaintiffs in this case, they may seek further legal recourse, but the options appear limited. The Seventh Circuit's ruling is final unless the plaintiffs decide to appeal to the Supreme Court, which is uncertain at this time. There are no related cases pending that could impact this ruling.
In summary, the Seventh Circuit's affirmation of the lower court's ruling in Koehler v. Infosys Technologies Limited, Inc. serves as a critical reminder of the legal hurdles faced by plaintiffs in discrimination cases, particularly regarding the admissibility and reliability of expert testimony.