Harvinder Pujji sued Pete Buttigieg, as Secretary of the Department of Transportation, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, alleging discrimination based on race, religion, and national origin, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII. Before the court was Defendant’s motion for summary judgment.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Pujji, born in India and a practicing Sikh who wears a turban, worked as an Aviation Safety Inspector at the FAA’s St. Louis Flight Standards District Office. He began working there in 2001 but was terminated in 2002 due to citizenship status. After resolving that dispute, he returned to work at the FAA in 2014. During his employment, Pujji received an anonymous letter referring to him as “Mr. Turban head” and warning his supervisor to “WATCH THE TURBAN.” The FAA’s investigation of this incident was unclear and inadequately communicated to Pujji.
Throughout his employment, Pujji testified that coworkers repeatedly made comments about his turban, including jokes about gaining “turban time” (a play on “turbine time,” an important aviation metric). His supervisor, Lawrence Sadowski, placed him on a performance improvement plan called an Opportunity to Demonstrate Performance (ODP). During the ODP, administered by Jason McCoy, Pujji was told his “Indian English is not going to work here.” Another manager, Guillermo Heredia, made comments suggesting Pujji’s brain tumor was caused by his turban.
Legal Analysis
Discrimination: The court found direct evidence of discrimination through supervisors’ discriminatory comments, particularly McCoy’s statement about “Indian English” and Heredia’s comments about Pujji’s turban. The court determined these were not mere “stray remarks” but reflected discriminatory attitudes by persons involved in employment decisions.
Retaliation: The court found sufficient evidence of retaliation, noting the temporal proximity between Pujji’s protected activities and adverse employment actions. The court particularly noted the timing of the ODP implementation immediately before a mediation session regarding Pujji’s discrimination complaint.
Hostile Work Environment: The court found sufficient evidence of a hostile work environment through both supervisory and coworker conduct, including repeated comments about Pujji’s turban, the anonymous letter, and management’s inadequate response to reported incidents.
The court denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims, finding genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment.
Schrag on Law 