Ruling in Favor of Infosys in Whistleblower Retaliation Case Shifts Focus to Criminal Investigation

Don Tennant

Infosys employee and whistleblower Jay Palmer’s retaliation lawsuit against Infosys came to an end on Monday, as the federal judge hearing the case ruled in favor of Infosys’ motion for a summary judgment, finding that Palmer does not have an actionable case against Infosys under Alabama state law. But the celebration at Infosys may well be short-lived.

 

Before I get into what lies ahead for Infosys, let me address the Opinion that was filed by U.S. District Court Judge Myron H. Thompson on Monday. I have never spoken with Judge Thompson, and I don’t pretend to be able to read his mind. But it’s not difficult to deduce from the way he wrote his Opinion that he wasn’t happy about being compelled to rule in favor of Infosys, and about having his hands tied by Alabama state employment law. The Opinion was laced with such caveats as, “rightly or wrongly,” “like it or not,” and “this court cannot rewrite state law.”

 

Here’s an excerpt from Judge Thompson’s Opinion:

Because Palmer’s claims arise out of his employment, it is important to keep in mind that Alabama is an ‘at-will’ employment state. The Alabama Supreme Court has explained that: “The bedrock principle of Alabama employment law is that, in the absence of a contract providing otherwise, employment in this state is at-will, terminable at the will of either party. Under this doctrine, an employee may be discharged for any reason, good or bad, or even for no reason at all.” … And an extension of this principle and logic would be that, absent a contract providing otherwise, [an] employee may be demoted, denied a promotion, or otherwise adversely treated for any reason, good or bad, or even for no reason at all. The Alabama Supreme Court has, rightly or wrongly, jealously guarded this at-will status … It is against this backdrop of Alabama law, like it or not, that the court considers Palmer’s claims arising out of his employment.

 

So under Alabama state employment law, rightly or wrongly, like it or not, an employee can be adversely treated for any reason, or for no reason at all. And there’s nothing Judge Thompson could do about that, as he pointed out in his Opinion:


Without question, the alleged electronic and telephonic threats [against Palmer] are deeply troubling. Indeed, an argument could be made that such threats against whistleblowers, in particular, should be illegal. The issue before the court, however, is not whether Alabama should make these alleged wrongs actionable, but whether they are, in fact, illegal under state law. This court cannot rewrite state law. Therefore, for the reasons given throughout this opinion, this court must conclude that, under current Alabama law, Palmer has no right to recover from Infosys.

I spoke with Palmer’s attorney, Kenny Mendelsohn, on Monday night. Here’s what he had to say about Judge Thompson’s ruling:

 

It’s disappointing, but we certainly respect, and even understand, Judge Thompson’s Opinion. Despite the ruling, there was a lot in the Opinion that was comforting to me. He said the things Jay went through were troubling and worrisome, and that there’s a strong argument that stuff like this that happens to whistleblowers should be illegal. But he’s bound by Alabama law, and he can’t rewrite the law. And under the law, he had to find that this doesn’t amount to the tort of outrage.

 

From my point of view, I’m proud of Jay for standing up to them, because it was this lawsuit that has spurred so much interest, and helped with the criminal investigation of Infosys, and brought all this to light. And as Judge Thompson said, he can’t rewrite the law. But I hope some people will take a look at this and realize we need to do more for the Jay Palmers of the world.

 

Infosys did not respond to my request for a comment. But according to other media outlets, the company released this statement on Monday:

 

Today's decision confirms what we have been saying from the beginning: Mr. Palmer's claims of retaliation were completely unfounded. This is a company built on core values that include leadership by example, integrity and transparency. Those values always have and will continue to shape the way we do business with our clients and, without exception, the way we treat our people. We are pleased to consider this matter officially closed.

 

Well, not so fast. It all depends on how you define “this matter.” If it’s the relatively innocuous matter of Palmer’s retaliation and harassment claim, yeah, it’s over. But if we’re talking about the alleged visa and tax fraud that Palmer blew the whistle on, unfortunately for Infosys, it’s officially wide open. Mendelsohn put it this way:

 

When I first got involved, it was a whistleblower case that needed to be reported to the federal government. But I can tell you, this thing is a lot bigger than just this case, or just this decision today by Judge Thompson. While it is disappointing, and it is somewhat of a setback, the overall matter with Infosys and their conduct is far from over.

 

Jay is still a material witness in an ongoing criminal investigation, and an administrative investigation, by various federal government agencies. As this case developed, it became clear that this matter was far bigger than just Jay Palmer or Kenny Mendelsohn. There is still a lot more that will be done involving the Infosys matter, and while this is a setback, this is not, by any means, over. There’s a lot more going on involving Infosys, but I’m not allowed at this time to make any other comments.

 

I don’t know what it is that Mendelsohn can’t talk about. What I do know is that Judge Thompson’s ruling on Palmer’s retaliation lawsuit has absolutely no bearing on the criminal investigation of Infosys that’s being led by the Department of State, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice. As I’ve been reporting for well over a year, it’s the criminal proceedings involving alleged violations of U.S. immigration and tax laws, not Palmer’s civil case about alleged harassment and retaliation against one individual, that really matter.



Add Comment      Leave a comment on this blog post
Aug 21, 2012 6:31 PM Richard Richard  says:
This Alabama judge has now given open license to all employers in US, including Indian bodyshops, to harass employees at-will and get more done for little pay. If anyone raises voice then employers will cite Jay Palmer's example of classic defeat. Wonder what is in store for Sep 17 trial date. If Infosys wins that too then we will see more rampant visa fraud (openly and without any fears). I sometimes doubt if USA is the same old nation built upon principles of truth, integrity and reighteousness. Reply
Aug 21, 2012 7:31 PM D.K.Bose D.K.Bose  says:
Court has now officially stamped Palmer as a LIAR, what Infosys had already said a year back. Without any evidence he, Mendelsohn and Don were making stories and fooling people all these days. Don some what managed to confuse if not convince his readers by misleading posts and also made some money. But Palmer came out as a loser as he paid to attorney, lost the case and now will pay to court. Only condolence for Palmer is that he is getting free salary from Infosys from last 2 years without doing anything and also as per the documents filed in the court Infosys is paying him more than anyone else has paid him in his entire career. Though Don sold some stories but his mask got removed and now everyone know his real intention. He has nothing to do with visa abuse and was only interested in taking some cut if Palmer would have got any compensation. I remember when he tried to fool people by telling father-Son story and why he cant cover similar IBM visa fraud whereas the real thing is that IBM logo in the IT Business edge site which his scaring him from doing so :D. He also deleted similar TCS story saying legal issues whereas the real thing is something else. Reply
Aug 21, 2012 7:44 PM truth truth  says:
Don, the ruling clearly shows that Palmer tried to siphon money, in his lawsuit he claims things like he was treated badly as he was a white and Christian. What happens on federal ruling is something we will watch for. Palmer now has to pay legal fees and all his savings are gone. I don't know why you are still against infosys. Reply
Aug 21, 2012 8:38 PM Indian Indian  says:
I do not pretend to know law, especially American laws. But if you read the full verdict(nearly 25 pages), it is almost obvious that Jay had no case. He has received an increase in compensation. For his bonus, that is not an entitlement. It is a variable part of the compensation which everybody in the industry knows, can always be denied(the employment contract explicitly says so). In most cases, the bonus is tied to bill ability, so if Jay was on "Bench", he would have no case to be entitled to bonus. Like it or not, laws need to protect both employers and employees. You have ridiculous cases of people spilling hot coffee and sewing companies and greedy lawyers extracting penalty for cases like this! All posters should try to run a small business and see how challenging it is to operate in such an environment. Secondly, if Jay is the prime witness in the pending visa violation case, I am not sure how much credibility he brings, especially given that he has lost the case without even going to trial. I feel the Infosys lawyers will try to bring down the credibility of Jay and position him as an unreliable witness. Reply
Aug 21, 2012 9:10 PM Ravi Ravi  says:
From the details of the judgment it is very clear that Infosys won a victory purely on technical legal grounds. Judge Thompson clearly agrees that Palmer has been threatened and has probably faced retaliation as a whistleblower. Smart move by the INFY legal team to go for a summary judgment and avoid a jury trial. But even in his judgment, it is quite clear where Thompson's sympathies lie. Don: As an Indian, let me apologize for the ignorant comments by a lot of Indians who view this as an "Us Versus Them" battle. Poor saps don't realize that they are also victims. How does it help an Indian employee when he is underpaid! And a lot of them are even under the H1B! And on an aside, I know B1 visa abuse was very common till early or mid-2007. I think the real solution is a visa system that is filed by an employer but does not tie an employee to the employer. In that case, automatically, you'd need to pay higher wages than prevalent local rates - which is exactly how it ought to be if there is indeed a skill shortage. Reply
Aug 21, 2012 9:22 PM embositionsfordonandteam embositionsfordonandteam  says:
"Myron H. Thompson found no basis to support any of the charges filed by Palmer and dismissed the case entirely"----- "Myron H. Thompson found no basis to support any of the charges filed by Palmer and dismissed the case entirely"----- "Myron H. Thompson found no basis to support any of the charges filed by Palmer and dismissed the case entirely"----- "Myron H. Thompson found no basis to support any of the charges filed by Palmer and dismissed the case entirely"---- this guys are international frauds. they didnt had any evidence ans was acting ... throw this guys from america Reply
Aug 22, 2012 2:06 AM John Smith John Smith  says:
I feel like laughing at Don, Jay, Mendelsohn and their followers. Just by repeating that Infosys does Visa fraud and harassed Palmer, it is not going to become true! Jay Palmer is a liar, he manipulated emails and documents to file this lawsuit, this has been proven by independent experts. No wonder the lawsuit was thrown and costs ordered against Palmer. Don Tennant, is equally bigger liar, because he only shows his followers what suits him and conveniently forgets to report the other side of the story. Infosys is going to come out clean in Federal investigation also. The overall B1 travel count is so insignificant that even if Infosys misused it as claimed by Palmer, it would not have any impact on either the revenues or profits of 7 billion company. No sensible corporation will do a corporate fraud to save on some loose change. Wake up guys, else you will make yourself irrelevant! Reply
Aug 22, 2012 3:52 AM I_feel_sad_for_Don I_feel_sad_for_Don  says:
Don, are you crying out loudly? It was always clear that the case wrongly put forward with evil intentions. Some reporters like you trying desperately publicize it again for hidden intentions! I can only sympathize with you and Jay:-) Reply
Aug 22, 2012 6:05 AM a a  says:
Where is the copy of judgment available, we cannot get the correct picture of what was the judgment and why it was made unless we see the full judgment, both statements, one from infosys and one from don both are biased and do not give the correct picture. Reply
Aug 22, 2012 6:59 AM Pro Pro  says:
Looks like Jim Crow in reverse! Well the ruling opened up another loop hole, now Indian IT firms will move their US headquarters to Alabama or other Southern States so as to fall under jurisdiction of these states! I hope someone in DHS/DOJ understands, Justice delayed is Justice Denied! Investigations have been going on since a year and no charges have been filed. This delay in filing charges amounts to more job losses, more cover up and more exploitation! Isn’t SEC doing anything? http://jobsearch.naukri.com/b1-visa-jobs Reply
Aug 22, 2012 8:21 AM LunaSol LunaSol  says:
Did I miss something? States and municipalities are allowed to enact their own employment discrimination laws that include or expand the provisions in the Federal laws. If this is the case, at a minimum, wouldn't the below apply to Jay's case? Whistleblower Protection Act An amendment to the Civil Service Reform Act, it protects an employee from retaliation for reporting an employer's illegal actions to the proper authorities. (A variety of other laws help to enforce protection.) Peer.org analysis on Alabama do reveal you may not want to try a whistleblower case in that State. Alabama has a relatively weak whistleblower laws: - Scoring only 38 out of a possible 100 points; and - Ranking 48th out of 51 (50 states and the District of Columbia) Alabama has narrow coverage (13 out of 33 possible points) with limited usability (13 out of 33) and weak remedies (12 out of 33). Wouldn't Jay's lawyer know this before going in? Perhaps he thought the States laws would expand on the Federal not detract as it appears in this case. Then again, I'm not a lawyer; so, I'm not clear on the nuances. Reply
Aug 22, 2012 8:59 AM True True  says:
Hope Palmer pays all the legal dues. Also pls note the company has been paying him till now for doing no work. Also they will continue to keep him in company. That itself shows infosys is a good company. Calling the next case as crimal is not fair,. Hope that case also finishes fast and infosys come clean. PS: Btw your blog is no longer featured in the " featured section "on itbusinessdge webpage :) Reply
Aug 22, 2012 9:47 AM SeaLTeam6 SeaLTeam6  says: in response to a
For those interested, here's the link to the filings and ruling: http://dockets.justia.com/docket/alabama/almdce/2:2011cv00217/45189/ Reply
Aug 22, 2012 9:47 AM Indian-Munich Indian-Munich  says:
Hi Don, Please reply to this . As I understand Jack lost the case because he was not able to prove that Infosys harassed him (death threats and all). Now everybody ,including infosys, knows that they have misused Business Visa ,but will the US authorities be able to prove that it was a company policy ? Or will that case also closed citing insufficient proofs ? In my openion finding a couple of employees who "worked" on business visa might be possible,for which Infosys might pay some penalty,but proving it as a company policy looks difficult. What is your openion on that ? Reply
Aug 22, 2012 10:26 AM a a  says:
Don definitely lost his credibility now by blogging continuously one side of the story spewing hatred against a company with no substantial proof and defending his action by saying he's a blogger n free to express hi views. In the end the truth comes out and a loss of face for don n palmer. Reply
Aug 22, 2012 1:52 PM R. Lawson R. Lawson  says: in response to Indian-Munich
"As I understand Jack lost the case because he was not able to prove that Infosys harassed him" That is completely wrong. The case was dismissed because the federal judge ruled that, under Alabama law, whistleblowers are not protected from harassment from their employers. It is an at-will state so employers can fire or punish employees monetarily for just about any reason (except reasons protected under federal law). A jury and not a judge would have voted on the outcome of the case. The facts were not considered so neither judge or jury ruled on if he was harassed or not. In short, Infosys got away in this one part of the case because Alabama doesn't adequately protect workers. There is another case and a grand jury that will consider the matter surrounding violation of visa rules. This case in Alabama was a lawsuit brought by Jay Palmer seeking damages for harassment because he reported those violations. Federal law should include whistleblower as a protected status (in addition to gender, religion, race, etc). It doesn't. Reply
Aug 22, 2012 1:58 PM LunaSol LunaSol  says: in response to embositionsfordonandteam
I see, you choose to "cherry pick" a piece of the statement. "Computerworld - WASHINGTON - A federal court decision on Monday to throw out a civil lawsuit against Infosys is a clear loss for the plaintiff, Jay Palmer. But it isn't much of a win for Infosys. The real problem for IT services firm Infosys is an investigation by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and a federal grand jury in Texas into alleged visa fraud. It's that investigation that the company felt compelled, via a SEC filing, to warn investors about." The article further writes: "To be clear," wrote Alabama U.S. District Court Judge Myron Thompson, in his ruling Monday dismissing Palmer's case, "this litigation does not concern whether Infosys violated American immigration law." As someone else mentioned in the comments, the case was decided on a technicality. It would be interesting to see how the CA whisteblower case (much more employee friendly State) turns out. Infosys is not in a position to exhale just yet. Reply
Aug 23, 2012 4:03 AM nik nik  says:
More than that of the judge, I've become a believer in a higher power that guides us all. Here's an employee (145K/annum base salary + bonuses) who 1. was a fundamentally bad hire having absolutely none of the skills (pkg impl in supply chain) for which he was hired, he misrepresented a sales job as implementation knowledge during the interview 2. used to write several pointless mails like "i love this company", "i will go anywhere and do anything required" etc for simple project or proposal transactions which contributed nothing to the discussions - we all realized later why 3. refused to learn any of the financial/project mgmt processes/systems at infosys, causing massive amount of rework & exception approvals for his peers managing things 4. forged intranet announcements/congrats mails for the team to make it look like his own 5. frequently overstepped his mandate (of observing project boundaries) by committing on work related to other Infosys teams in the same account, causing them huge heartburn 6. getting high & making merry with some client folks, exposing financial calculations & promising discounts under influence The list goes on & on & on, but hey, karma is a boomerang! Reply
Aug 23, 2012 4:21 AM nik nik  says:
On the upcoming B-1 "fraud" case, pls note 1. Profit Argument: People coming from India on B-1s get India salary (falsely baselined as $15K/annum for ALL cases by Palmer) PLUS a daily allowance of $150 (for stay, food & travel,cleverly underplayed by the lawyer). For the company, the gross outgo is equivalent to H-1 (150*30 equals 4500 plus India salary of 1250), so B1 won't give extra profits! 2. Employment Argument: People on B-1s travel for max 90 days per trip (at Infosys, its usually 4-6 weeks including cool-off periods since it takes a much more conservative view). These are NOT Full Time Equivalent positions 3. Tasks on B-1: When Boeing sells an aircraft to an Indian airline & there's a snag, folks fly in on biz visa. Is it work? May be. But you don't need a long term work visa to come for a 2-3 weeks to fix an engine.That's where the entire B-1 visa regimen becomes nebulous. eg: If I'm in a conference on B-1 selling my software, someone buys it & I fly to their office to install the software, is it a visa violation? I'd wait for the courts to judge that. Net-net, short-term tasks will always be there in any project, but when mind is full of hate, details take a backseat Reply
Aug 23, 2012 5:14 AM thug_palmer thug_palmer  says:
So how much does jack palmer owe to the court of law ? and how much does Don owe to business edge for firing from their shoulder ? Reply
Aug 23, 2012 7:48 AM George George  says: in response to nik
You comment provides very good insights. Thanks for sharing! Reply
Aug 23, 2012 10:13 AM waitandsee waitandsee  says: in response to LunaSol
we will wait and see.... better we dont be overemotional as we dont want to take another blow on our face..... its hard to believe madlilson never knew the laws of state albama... then why don believed palmer is going to win.. so where something is wrong.. now what we have to see is , has palmer provided enough evidence to court on H1B or is he just claiming. if he has given proper evidence why the delay in trial.. the more the time taken by ivestigators , the more chance for infosys,,,, because the delay is because of confusions or doubts or less clarity in the case. benifit of doubt always goes to infosys in this case. don used to wrte as if the victory is with palmer but what happened..... he also did not know the laws and rules....then how can we believ in what he writes about h1b issues---i am cluless Reply
Aug 23, 2012 10:34 AM embositionsfordonandteam embositionsfordonandteam  says: in response to LunaSol
So , if the law is like this --- madlison the great lawer never knew that ? ohh please dont joke he thought he had enough evidences but he never had ... if there were evidences court would defanitly had considered that... but evidences given by plamer was sooo cheap that lawer got frustrated and he asked palmer itself to pay the entire court fees i dont think any state can have such a rigid law... that if an employee shows evidnces that his life was under threat from a company..(as palmer claimed) and its is allowed.... the fact is that palmer didnt had any solid evidences as he claimed.. h1b also is not going to be different as palmer is the prime withess...... he was enjoying infy salary for last 2 years without any work .....and he aslo wants bonous...hahahahaha pamer the joker Reply
Aug 23, 2012 10:42 AM lookathisface lookathisface  says: in response to nik
just look at his face.... (search google images)..that tells about who he is ..... infosys please fire this useless guy Reply
Aug 23, 2012 9:32 PM a a  says: in response to George
and just to add, palmer stated that companies are doing a tax evasion by not paying them salary in US but rather giving them advance in credits cards/prepaid cards to spend. And he forgot or rather safely avoided to tell that once the person returns back he has to give details of his expenses( accomodation and travel) submit the bils and return back the advance the employee has taken but didnt spend. Reply
Aug 24, 2012 7:22 AM jake_leone jake_leone  says:
Apparently in Alabama and some states with similar laws, an employer can harass, demote, and even call and give a death threat to their employees. You need to understand who is doing the legal dancing in this. InfoSys is still paying Jay Palmer. Why? So they can call him an employee. If they fire him, then they are liable for any death threat or other harassment or character assassination. Any modern judge should know, since Nuremburg, that following the letter of the law is no excuse. This man's ability to even walk in public was, according to the allegations, threatened by his employer. And that is worth investigating, protecting, and if found to be true, should require some legal remedy. InfoSys is a public corporation, if they didn't make the threats, then they have nothing to fear, and they should have no reason what-so-ever to ask for a dismissal. And in fact should be glad to have the case heard before a jury. It is InfoSys that fears the public knowing the truth of their Visa System abuse. Reply
Aug 24, 2012 7:59 AM info info  says:
Don, What happened? Just the previous article was that the case is moved by 4 weeks to next month and then the unexpected verdict? Do you know? Reply
Aug 24, 2012 10:56 AM Nik Nik  says: in response to Richard
Richard - Truth, integrity and honesty - be rest assured, they do exist, as this judgment shows. All I'm gonna request you is to read the 2nd doc from the link sealteam6 has sent and you'd be able to see for yourself how flimsy, concocted and unsubstantiated the whole case is. In fact one of evidence mentioned is a mail message from some random guy thru LinkedIn who has no connection whatsoever with Infosys! Even if we ignore the veracity of these hand written notes and claim that someone from infosys who was only in sw development got access to admin password from network admin team to break in and type something, it still doesn't prove any organised harassment as against some isolated incident which is what the judge commented upon. Reply
Aug 25, 2012 4:20 PM AK AK  says:
Why wasn't this case filed under SOX? There are specific clauses in SOX that protect whistleblowers which this case satisifies and an Indian ADR is applicable to. It seems to me, some blame needs to be placed on the lawyer. Reply
Aug 27, 2012 9:25 AM SP SP  says: in response to a
The judge ruled he could not collect damages for having been benched and deprived of bonuses- That's not the same as saying he was not harassed. Also, I read an article where they published some of the threatening notes Jay received- I think stuff like,"I hope you die" is harder to prove as threat. Wishing someone harm is different from threatening to harm someone. Who ever sent that note thought this through. My question, though, is about Mendlehsson- Did he not know that Alabama is an At-Will Employment state? Did he not know that he could not have been awarded damages? Looks like he misled Jay, and now the poor man's stuck with legal bills. Infosys will want to boost their image and not send him the bill, but what if they do? Good attorneys charge over $1000 an hour! Reply
Aug 27, 2012 4:13 PM Dolores Dolores  says:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/article/Judge-stops-ex-Toyota-worker-from-leaving-country-3818233.php Reply
Aug 28, 2012 9:30 AM Justice Justice  says:
The real lawsuit is that Infosys lied to the US government. They cheated the visa process and it is a Federal Crime. The DOJ needs to close this investigation before the November's election. Obama is not getting my vote if this case is not closed before the election.Furthermore, Infosys hired a close friend of Obama and I would like to highlight that Obama is not getting my vote if the DOJ doesn't close this criminal case against Infosys Reply
Aug 29, 2012 3:20 AM Hireamerican Hireamerican  says: in response to Justice
Who cares about your vote? Obama sure doesn't. Romney definitely does not care. You are screwed because all politicians are bought. Reply
Sep 3, 2012 12:01 PM Dolores Dolores  says:
It's amazing how little reading comprehension the defenders of Infosys are showing. The judge never exonerated Infosys, never called Jay a liar (on the contrary, the court believed him but decided that the way the law is framed, that they couldn't do anything to help him). Society must be in a truly sorry state back in the home country if the behavior of Infosys over here seems at all respectable or admirable to anyone. Reply
Sep 4, 2012 10:36 AM indian indian  says: in response to Dolores
And society seems to be in really sorry state where judge says his hands are tied because of the way laws are framed. Reply
Sep 6, 2012 8:29 AM Guru Singhe Guru Singhe  says: in response to Dolores
Respect, Sorry, guilt, ethics these words are alien to Infosys, it's Employees and it's beneficiary. If you have worked with Infosys in recent times, common sense will tell you what to expect from their behaviour. I heard of cases in India where girls new to the city were sold off in prostitution by Taxi. The same model is of Infosys (funny analogy but correct). Their Cloud Computing unit mainly and other units as well have same model. Very good IT professionals with niche skill sets are given false picture about BUsiness Unit. Once they are in the company, they are put into projects with skills and roles not relevent to the resource. I have seen 12 years experience BPM Architect to his tears as he was cheated into Java/ J2EE production support. People at the AVP level were just laughing and other junior developers had very good time humilating him. How a company can be so stupid and community so cruel to it's own people. I am Sri Lankan and in last two years traveled to US, UK and India for IT company was with. Seeing the work culture of IT industry (especially Indian Company lnfosys, Syntel, Cognizant ), I changed my career altogether. Happy to be out of IT now. Reply
Feb 22, 2013 4:40 PM L.Mohan Arun L.Mohan Arun  says:
Why are American companies still giving projects to Infosys? Boycott any company that is giving projects to Infosys and/or employs people from Infosys.. Dont do business with Infosys. Its that simple.. instead of foisting stupid cases and wasting time, energy and money, simply stay away from India base software companies. These Indians are not needed in America or elsewhere. Reply
Mar 27, 2014 8:23 AM charlietime7777 charlietime7777  says:
It is really interesting that this turned into a criminal investigation. I am sure that there are a lot of people who are awaiting the verdict on this one. Hopefully things work out according to the law and justice. http://www.leenandemery.com/representation.html Reply

Post a comment

 

 

 

 


(Maximum characters: 1200). You have 1200 characters left.

 

null
null

 

Subscribe to our Newsletters

Sign up now and get the best business technology insights direct to your inbox.