A sexual harassment lawsuit filed in Santa Clara, California, earlier this month has become a fight over the appropriate court to hear the case rather than the facts of the incident. The defendant is fighting to force the case into a federal court, while the plaintiff seeks to keep the jurisdiction purely within California’s court system.

On December. 7, 2021, Kajal Prasad filed a lawsuit against Cognizant Technology Solutions in Santa Clara, California, alleging that the company violated California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act, which guarantees all employees the right to a workplace free of sexual harassment as well as freedom from retaliation.

Prasad began working for Cognizant in February 2019 on one of its IT support teams and reported directly to Ramesh Pulagam. After a few months on the job, Prasad’s supervisor, Pulagam, offered to make the plaintiff a full-time employee with a raise if she began a relationship with him, stating to her one night “I take care of you, you take care of me.”

Prasad declined the offer, and almost immediately, according to the complaint, Pulagam “became hostile…and highly critical of her work performance” whereas before he had been highly complimentary of her work and performance. After reporting this “poor” job performance to other managers, Pulagam told Plaintiff that her work circumstances would go back to normal if she reconsidered his relationship proposal. He gave her one week to consider the proposal. Then, on February 7, 2020, Plaintiff was terminated after declining her supervisor’s offer for the second time.

There are 94 trial courts across the United States that make up the federal U.S. District Courts system. Each state has at least one district court. Conversely, California is home to the largest court system in the country with the California Supreme Court making up the state’s highest court.

On June 2, 1998, California voted for a constitutional amendment allowing judges of each county to unify the superior and municipal courts into one single court, which today is known as the Superior Court for that county. Those superior courts have trial jurisdiction over all criminal and civil cases within their district.

Prasad’s sexual harassment lawsuit was originally filed in the California Superior Court of Santa Clara. On January 15, 2022, the defendant, Cognizant Technology, filed to remove the case to the federal court system based on the “complete diversity between the parties” and the fact that the amount requested in damages exceeds $75,000. The defendant filed the request to remove the case within 30 days as required by 28 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1446.

To remove a case from the state court system to federal court, the amount in controversy must be over $75,000, according to 28 U.S.C Section 1332. While the lawsuit does not request a stated amount for the requested damages, the defendant reasoned that since the annual wage of the plaintiff was $76,900, there was no question that the amount in question exceeded this threshold.

Also under Section 1332, in order to remove a case to the federal court system, the case must have “complete diversity.” This entails that the defendant and the plaintiff be citizens of different States. When the case was filed, the plaintiff was a citizen of California, but the company is “deemed to be a citizen of every State… by which it has been incorporated and of the State… where it has its principal place of business.” Cognizant Technologies is an incorporated company in Delaware and authorized to do business in Santa Clara, California.

There are a few reasons why a defendant would favor a federal court over a state court trial. Under the Speedy Trial Act, District Courts are forced to prioritize criminal cases over civil ones when it comes to scheduling trials. Therefore, by default, civil cases often get pushed further and further down the docket, leading to longer wait times compared to state courts which are usually faster-moving for both civil and criminal cases.

Another factor slowing down the federal court system is the high rate of vacancies in the District Courts across the country currently. Additionally, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure put limits on the amount of discovery available during the entire process. Lastly, federal courts have historically been more prone to grant motions to dismiss or motions for summary judgment than state courts.