A surname-sorting method and an 89% stat were supposed to prove bias. It fell apart
A decade-old discrimination case against Infosys just collapsed - not on the facts, but because the plaintiffs' statistical evidence fell apart.
On July 13, 2026, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against Infosys, the India-based consulting and technology company. Four people who worked for, or applied to work at, Infosys brought the case. All four are of non-South Asian background, and they alleged the company favored South Asian workers in how it hired and managed staff.
Their case rested largely on one expert. The plaintiffs hired a labor economist to study Infosys's workforce data. He concluded that "89.39% of Infosys' United States workforce was South Asian," against just 11.45% in the relevant domestic industry, and argued chance could not explain the difference.
The problem was how he got there. Infosys did not track worker and applicant demographics in the detail he needed, so he built a five-step "name-matching" method that sorted people as South Asian or not based on their surnames. The trial court ruled he was not qualified for that work and that the method was unreliable, and it excluded his opinions under the federal rule on expert testimony. He had acknowledged at deposition that he had no experience in name matching and no expertise in identifying South Asian names.
With the expert evidence out, the case came apart. The court...
A video is being widely circulated on social media with sensational claims that “Goodbye Islam in Iran,” alleging that over ten tons of Qurans were thrown into a river and more than 50,000 mosques...