HCL America, headquartered in Santa Clara, California, will pay the settlement amount to resolve an EEOC lawsuit filed in August 2024 alleging age and national origin discrimination in hiring practices. The case stems from the company's July 2021 rejection of a qualified applicant for a sales director position, where hiring personnel explicitly cited the candidate's age in internal communications and sought alternatives based on demographic characteristics.
According to the lawsuit, HCL America rejected the 62-year-old applicant of Indian descent after stating in an email to the hiring team that he was "too old," and instructing recruiters to "explore diverse candidates." The EEOC alleged that HCL categorized candidates as "diverse" if they were non-Indian, female, or both, and in subsequent communications with recruiters discussed goals to identify candidates based on gender and ethnicity while expressing willingness to dispense with relevant qualifications including sales or IT experience depending on the candidate's demographics. A younger, non-Indian candidate was ultimately hired for the position.
Under the two-year consent decree approved by the court on April 2, 2026, HCL America will pay $495,000 to the applicant and engage a third-party consultant to review and revise its policies and procedures concerning age and national origin discrimination. The company must also provide training to recruitment personnel, managers, and supervisors on compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws.
The settlement reflects the EEOC's ongoing focus on discriminatory hiring practices, particularly those that exclude qualified candidates based on protected characteristics under the guise of diversity initiatives. The agency filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California after unsuccessful pre-litigation settlement attempts through its administrative conciliation process, charging violations of both the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
"This suit illustrates how discriminatory hiring in the name of achieving diversity can harm any applicant," said EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas. "The EEOC will continue to act to stop employers from unlawfully hiring based on protected characteristics." Christopher Green, district director for the EEOC's San Francisco District Office, emphasized that "hiring must be based on merit — not age or national origin — as the ADEA and Title VII requires."
Regional attorney Roberta L. Steele noted that "employers must ensure they are in compliance with federal law and provide training for hiring managers and recruiters to understand their responsibilities to prevent age and national origin discrimination." The case demonstrates the EEOC's commitment to evenhanded enforcement of anti-discrimination laws regardless of the stated rationale for exclusionary hiring practices.
The settlement serves as a warning to employers that diversity initiatives cannot justify consideration of protected characteristics in hiring decisions, and that merit-based selection remains the legal standard. For technology consulting firms and multinational corporations with complex hiring processes, the case underscores the importance of training hiring personnel on lawful recruitment practices and maintaining compliant documentation throughout the selection process.