Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bayat v. Accenture Corporation LLC

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

May 24, 2019

ATILA BAYAT, Plaintiff,
v.
ACCENTURE CORPORATION LLC, Defendant.

          RULING AND ORDER ON DISCOVERY DISPUTES AND AMENDMENT OF PRE-TRIAL SCHEDULE

          Victor A. Bolden, United States District Judge.

         On May 21, 2019, the Court held a telephonic discovery conference to address several pending discovery matters in this employment discrimination action. Minute Entry, dated May 23, 2019, ECF No. 35.

         For the reasons that follow, the Court will permit the discovery sought by Plaintiff, but limit it to ensure it is both relevant and proportional to the needs of the case.

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Allegations

         Atila Bayat (“Plaintiff”) worked for Accenture Corporation LLC (“Defendant” or “Accenture”) as a Software Engineering Team Lead from February 2015 to September 2016. See Complaint, dated Sept. 24, 2018 (“Compl.”), ECF No. 1, at 12, 16. Primarily based in the Hartford, Connecticut office, he allegedly worked on consulting engagements for Accenture both locally and out of state. Id. at 12.

         Beginning in May 2016, Mr. Bayat allegedly “repeatedly brought to the attention of managers and personnel concerns about H1B, [1] and B1 personnel on U.S. based projects, foreign labor preference versus U.S. workers and placement on its projects to the detriment of U.S. Citizen employees, and the lack of collaboration on the part of management to place U.S. workers on projects in the US, where it does most of its business.” Id. at 15.

         Accenture allegedly responded to these complaints with “indifference, and retaliation in many forms” including: (1) denying him a normal salary review; (2) not placing him on projects conservatively within his range of experience; (3) preventing him from completing “training tracks” that he was in; (4) giving “foreign nationals” preference for those “training tracks”; and (5) terminating him on September 7, 2016. Id. at 16.

         B. Procedural History

         On September 24, 2018, Mr. Bayat sued Accenture, alleging, inter alia, claims under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”), 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. See Compl.

         On November 21, 2018, Accenture filed its Answer, denying all substantive allegations of liability under these statutes and asserting affirmative defenses. See Answer, dated Nov. 21, 2018, ECF No. 20.

         On December 19, 2018, the Court held a telephonic scheduling conference with the parties. Minute Entry, dated Dec. 20, 2018, ECF No. 26.

         The following day, December 20, 2018, the Court issued an Initial Scheduling Order, with discovery set to close by July 12, 2019. Initial Scheduling Order, dated Jul. 12, 2019, ECF No. 28.

         On April 29, 2019, Mr. Bayat filed a motion to compel discovery. Motion to ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.