Devorin v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd
2:24-cv-06648
| D.N.J. | May 5, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Randy Devorin, a 61-year-old white American, was terminated by TCS—a global IT and consulting firm—in September 2023 after over 10 years of employment.
- Devorin alleges his termination was part of a broader pattern by TCS to replace older, American employees with younger, Indian or Southeast Asian employees, in violation of federal and state anti-discrimination laws.
- Plaintiff claims he was directed to re-apply for other roles in the company, applied for over 25, but was not rehired, while younger/Indian colleagues and non-Americans were retained or rehired.
- This action follows similar claims asserted in Katz v. Tata Consultancy Services, Ltd., a pending putative class action in the same district, which Devorin states he will opt out of if a class is certified.
- TCS moved to dismiss or stay parts of Devorin’s lawsuit, arguing overlap with Katz (under the first-filed rule and prior pending action doctrine) and that § 1981 does not permit a citizenship discrimination claim by a U.S. citizen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of First-Filed Rule | Not applicable once both cases are in same court before the same judge and he seeks only individual relief | Substantial overlap with earlier Katz class suit requires stay/dismissal of duplicative claims | Rule not applied where both cases are before same court/judge and plaintiff is not seeking to represent overlapping parties |
| Applicability of Prior Pending Doctrine | Not a party to Katz (no class certified), so doctrine does not apply | Cases involve same subject matter/defendant; doctrine should bar duplicative suit | Doctrine does not apply; plaintiff is not a party to Katz, so no duplicative action by same plaintiff |
| § 1981 Citizenship Discrimination Claim | U.S. citizens may bring such claims under statutory text; relies on Rajaram (9th Cir.) | Statute only covers race/alienage; U.S. citizens not covered; relies on Chaiffetz (5th Cir.) | Follows Rajaram: § 1981 text permits citizenship-based claims by U.S. citizens |
| Sufficiency of Discrimination Pleadings | Alleged sufficient factual support for age, race/national origin, and citizenship discrimination | Did not contest sufficiency except for citizenship claim | Claim adequately pled to proceed |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008) (articulates standard for considering facts at motion to dismiss)
- In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997) (describes documents a court can consider at motion to dismiss)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (establishes plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (clarifies pleading standards from Twombly)
- McDonald v. Santa Fe Trail Transp. Co., 427 U.S. 273 (1976) (interprets § 1981 to prohibit racial discrimination against whites)
- Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (establishes § 1981 covers alienage discrimination)
- Saint Francis Coll. v. Al-Khazraji, 481 U.S. 604 (1987) (§ 1981 covers discrimination based on ancestry, ethnic characteristics)