Page 3
Ninth Circuit:
Professors Did Not Show Harm From Rule Against Caste Bias
Opinion Says Hindu Teachers Lack Standing to Challenge Public University’s Policy, on First Amendment Grounds, Where They Did Not Establish Any Intent to Engage in Any Violative Practices, Statement is Religion-Neutral
By a MetNews Staff Writer
Professors who are practicing Hindus, suing California State University officials over an anti-discrimination policy which includes the word “caste” in the description of a protected class, lack standing to pursue constitutional challenges to the inclusion of that word where it does not refer to the any religion and the plaintiffs admit they have no intention of violating the rule, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held yesterday.
At issue is a policy, adopted in its final form by the state university system in January 2023, which prohibits “discrimination based on any Protected Status” including “Nationality Race or Ethnicity (including color, caste, or ancestry).”
The university did not define “caste” and there is no mention of any particular faith in the statement.
Sunil Kumar, a professor of electrical engineering at San Diego State University, and Praveen Sinha, who teaches accountancy at the Long Beach campus, filed the operative complaint in February 2023, asserting claims, under 42 U.S.C. §1983, based on the First and Fourteenth Amendments against then-Interim Chancellor Jolene Koester (now retired) and other university officials.
They allege that the mention of “caste” in the policy is vague, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and stigmatizes their religion, causing them to self-censor certain religious practices, in violation of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment.
In the opinion, authored by Senior Circuit Court Judge Richard C. Tallman and joined in by Circuit Judges Michelle T. Friedland and Mark J. Bennett, the court said:
“The central issue in this case is whether California State University (“CSU”) professors have Article III standing to bring Due Process, Free Exercise, and Establishment Clause claims alleging that CSU’s anti-discrimination and harassment policy…attributes a caste system to Hinduism merely by adding ‘caste’ as a protected class….We hold that Appellants failed to demonstrate Article III standing to bring any of these claims.”
Complaint Allegations
Kumar and Sinha asserted in their complaint:
“While Plaintiffs applaud CSU’s effort to take a firm stance in favor of inclusion and against discrimination—something on which they are in complete agreement—the addition of ‘caste’ as a form of ‘Ethnicity’ in the Interim Policy’s Protected Statuses unfairly singles out and targets them as persons of Indian/South Asian origin and members of the Hindu religion.”
District Court Judge R. Gary Klausner of the Central District of California granted, in part, a defense motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to establish standing as to their Free Exercise Clause claim. The case proceeded to a bench trial on the remaining claims.
After trial, Klausner found for the defendants and dismissed the remaining causes of action.
Yesterday’s opinion affirms the ensuing judgment for the defendants and remanded the matter to ensure the dismissal be made without prejudice. In the decision, Tallman adopted Klausner’s definition of the term, saying:
“ ‘Caste’ is an expansive term referring to social hierarchies that exist across the world in many religions and societies, including in the United States. The Oxford English Dictionary contains eight definitions of ‘caste,’ one of which is ‘[a]ny of the (usually hereditary) classes…into which Hindu society is traditionally divided; a class of this sort forming part of a hierarchal social structure traditional in some parts of South Asia.’ The parties here both acknowledge that caste systems impact Hindus as well as Christians, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Muslims.”
Concrete Injury
To establish standing in federal court, Tallman said that plaintiffs must show that they have suffered a concrete injury. A plaintiff pursuing a pre-enforcement challenge must allege an intention to violate the policy and a credible threat of prosecution.
The professors assert a due process claim, contending that because the university failed to define the term, they have been deprived of notice as to what constitutes discrimination based on “caste.”
Tallman acknowledged that “Kumar testified at his deposition that he was ‘very worried’ that celebrating a religious festival could ‘become a big problem’ ” but concluded that the plaintiffs “have not offered any evidence that celebrating a Hindu festival outside of their workplace, or speaking about doing so within their workplace, constitutes discrimination or harassment as defined by the Policy on any basis, let alone on the basis of caste.”
He said that the professors’ fear that non-discriminatory practices could be misconstrued is not reasonable or imminent enough to demonstrate concrete injury.
Tallman said that the plaintiffs failed to establish injury for their claims based on the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment “for the same reasons that they failed to do so for their Due Process claim,” reasoning that “they have not demonstrated that any of their religious practices are arguably proscribed by the Policy.”
He added:
“Appellants intend to comply with the Policy, not to violate it….The complaint states that Appellants ‘applaud CSU’s effort to take a firm stance…against discrimination….’ This is because they ‘abhor’ caste discrimination and do not believe that caste is ‘in any way part of the Hindu religion or its teachings.’ ”
Establishment Clause
The jurist noted that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment prohibits governments from making any “law respecting an establishment of religion” and that the injuries alleged under that constitutional provision are usually “spiritual or psychological” in nature.
Plaintiffs assert that they suffered spiritual harm by the existence of a policy that disparages their religion, regardless of whether the policy is likely to be enforced against them.
Unpersuaded, Tallman remarked:
“After a fully developed record, the district court made a factual finding that the Policy had no hostility toward religion. It based that finding on (1) the fact that the Policy does not mention Hinduism; (2) dictionary definitions show ‘caste’ is ‘readily defined without reference to Hinduism’ as a ‘distinct class or rank in any society’; and (3) the absence of evidence that Appellee or the Policy’s stakeholders expressed ‘anti-Hindu sentiments.’ ”
He declared:
“Because we hold that those findings were not clearly erroneous, they foreclose Appellants’ standing argument. If the Policy does not stigmatize Hinduism, Appellants have no spiritual injury. And if there is no injury, there is no standing.”
The case is Kumar v. Koester, 23-4363.
Copyright 2025, Metropolitan News Company