CP: Raja firm's history of worker suits
Charlie Deitch at the City Paper has this week's cover story on mudslinging in the county executive's race, which includes a key new tidbit about Republican D. Raja's business practices.
His tech firm CEI hires employees, some of them from India on work visas, then subcontracts them across the U.S. They're required to sign an 18-month contract, and when if they break it they can get hauled into court -- it's happened at least 80 times by Charlie's count. Here's one case:
Take Sidd Nakade. Court records show that the day after signing his work agreement on Jan. 21, 2009, Nakade informed CEI that he'd learned his mother, who lived in India, could require surgery for cancer. Nakade said he may need to return to India, but claims he was told he would not be able to take vacation time so soon after starting a job. He declined to begin working for CEI. And though Nakade never worked for the company, CEI sued him for $5,600. The case is still pending.
And the response from the Raja camp:
"This is a very successful company that prides itself on delivering to the needs of their clients," says [campaign manager James] Genovese. "The company has employed thousands of contractors over the past 18 years and very few of them did not live up to their contractual obligations."
Plus the reaction (in a separate news release) from Democrat Rich Fitzgerald's campaign, which calls the lawsuits "truly appalling":
“It’s not enough for Raja to make millions outsourcing jobs overseas or to deny people the minimum wage. Raja seeks to punish workers who decide they want to work elsewhere,” Rich Fitzgerald’s campaign manager Mike Mikus said. “Most employers would show empathy when they learn a new hire’s mother had to have cancer surgery, but Raja decided he could make $5,600 off this poor guy’s unfortunate circumstance. It is truly appalling.”
The full Fitzgerald release (with a list of lawsuits) is after the jump:
Raja exposed for suing 84 employeesLabor Expert: Raja's lawsuits "eyebrow-raising" and "grossly excessive"
Republican County Executive candidate D. Raja's record of outsourcing American jobs overseas and being fined $133,000 for not paying the minimum wage and overtime was already well known, but today he was exposed by the Pittsburgh City Paper for filing 84 lawsuits against employees. According to the article, Raja files lawsuits against workers for leaving before the completion of the term of a contract or for not providing enough notice. Raja even sued someone for $5,600 when they informed Raja's company they would not be taking the job after learning that his mother needed surgery for cancer.
"It's not enough for Raja to make millions outsourcing jobs overseas or to deny people the minimum wage. Raja seeks to punish workers who decide they want to work elsewhere," Rich Fitzgerald's campaign manager Mike Mikus said. "Most employers would show empathy when they learn a new hire's mother had to have cancer surgery, but Raja decided he could make $5,600 off this poor guy's unfortunate circumstance. It is truly appalling."
The City Paper interviewed Professor Jeffrey Michael Hirsch who is an expert in employee and labor law at the University of North Carolina who condemned Raja's lawsuits, calling them "eyebrow-raising" and "grossly excessive." Hirsch added, "I sure as heck wouldn't want to work for anyone like that."
"Even a labor expert who has studied issues like these is deeply troubled by Raja's attempts to go after his employees who leave the company," Mikus said. "Based on his record of outsourcing jobs, being fined for not paying the minimum wage, and now these troublesome lawsuits, it is clear that he would be a disaster for working families as Allegheny County Executive.
Raja Lawsuits Against Employees
All court cases can be found at: https://dcr.alleghenycounty.us/SelectCaseID.asp?filename=Welcome.htm&NoLoginRequired=yes
1. AR96-6425 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Bhayana
2. AR96-8707 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Sharma
3. AR96-8687 – Computer Enterprises v. Solomon
4. AR97-508 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Naik
5. AR97-510 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Ghatpande
6. AR97-511 – Computer Enterprises v. Doshi
7. AR97-512 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Galigali
8. AR97-530 – Computer Enterprises v. Balakrishnan
9. AR97-1199 – Computer Enterprises v. Chandwani
10. AR97-1200 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Krisnamoorthy
11. AR97-2611 – Computer Enterprises v. Kumar
12. AR97-7910 – Computer Enterprises v. Cherayil
13. AR97-8529 – Computer Enterprises v. Annadorai
14. AR98-1239 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Chamkura
15. AR98-1352 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Das
16. AR98-1396 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Singh
17. AR98-2944 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Mehta
18. AR98-2513 – Computer Enterprises v. Shah
19. AR98-2527 – Computer Enterprises v. Basha
20. AR98-2583 – Computer Enterprises v. Akella
21. AR98-2945 – Computer Enterprises v. Muthusamy
22. AR98-3580 – Computer Enterprises v. Kulkarni
23. AR98-3755 – Computer Enterprises v. Thavasikani
24. AR98-4654 – Computer Enterprises v. Prakash
25. AR98-4655 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Gogia
26. AR98-5332 – Computer Enterprises v. Subramanian
27. AR98-5524 – Computer Enterprises v. Ramachandran
28. AR98-6101 – Computer Enterprises v. Parthasarathy
29. AR99-1911 – Computer Enterprises v. Sivasankaran
30. AR99-2859 – Computer Enterprises v. Bati
31. AR99-5918 – Computer Enterprises v. Boaz
32. AR00-2751 – Computer Enterprises v. Patel
33. AR00-4586 – Computer Enterprises v. Alam
34. AR00-4587 – Computer Enterprises v. Venu
35. AR00-5531 – Computer Enterprises v. Singla
36. AR00-8305 – Computer Enterprises v. Uppal
37. GD00-6965 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Kumar
38. GD00-13718 (side work) – Computer Enterprises v. Parker
39. GD00-19432 (Qwest) – Computer Enterprises v. Chopra
40. GD00-19464 (Qwest) – Computer Enterprises v. Rosinsky, et al.
41. GD00-20227 Qwest – Computer Enterprises v. Rajamanicham
42. GD00-20229 Qwest – Computer Enterprises v. Ahmed
43. GD01-5810 (H1B) – Computer Enterprises v. Joshuva
44. GD01-12071 (non-compete) – Computer Enterprises v. Team III Consultants, et al.
45. AR01-2495 – Computer Enterprises v. Belwariar
46. AR01-2496 – Computer Enterprises v. Singh
47. AR01-2499 – Computer Enterprises v. Deenadayalan
48. AR01-2500 – Computer Enterprises v. Kethireddy
49. AR01-2501 – Computer Enterprises v. Raghavan
50. AR01-2502 – Computer Enterprises v. Thakur
51. AR01-2505 – Computer Enterprises v. Utravalli
52. AR01-2506 – Computer Enterprises v. Hua
53. AR01-2507 – Computer Enterprises v. Lamba
54. AR01-2508 – Computer Enterprises v. Bethi
55. AR01-2514 – Computer Enterprises v. Ballav
56. AR01-2517 – Computer Enterprises v. Chintarevula
57. AR01-2518 – Computer Enterprises v. Kondeti
58. AR01-2519 – Computer Enterprises v. Patel
59. AR01-2521 – Computer Enterprises v. Singh
60. AR01-2522 – Computer Enterprises v. Mhatre
61. AR01-2526 – Computer Enterprises v. Kannantha
62. AR01-2527 – Computer Enterprises v. Suryapalam
63. AR01-2531 – Computer Enterprises v. Reddy
64. AR01-2533 – Computer Enterprises v. Rajaratnam
65. AR01-2534 – Computer Enterprises v. Sundararajan
66. AR01-2535 – Computer Enterprises v. Iyer
67. AR01-2536 – Computer Enterprises v. Patel
68. AR01-2537 – Computer Enterprises v. Dave
69. GD01-12824 – Computer Enterprises v. Dutt, et al.
70. GD02-2837 (non-compete) – Computer Enterprises v. Modis, Inc. et al.
71. AR04-1719 – Computer Enterprises v. Sharma, et al.
72. GD04-27708 – Computer Enterprises v. Paulraj, et al.
73. AR04-405 – Computer Enterprises v. Binette
74. AR04-806 – Computer Enterprises v. Spall
75. AR04-1010 – Computer Enterprises v. Miller
76. AR04-2916 – Computer Enterprises v. Chalil
77. AR04-3614 – Computer Enterprises v. Liebergen
78. AR05-1736 – Computer Enterprises v. Bhavsar
79. AR06-1393 – Elite Careers LLC v. Abdulkader
80. AR06-2209 – Computer Enterprises v. Manni
81. GD06-17828 – Computer Enterprises v. Getzow
82. AR09-2684 – Computer Enterprises v. Vuckov
83. AR09-2766 – Computer Enterprises v. Nakade
84. AR09-14268 – Computer Enterprises v. Poduri