On March 12, 2025, the Ninth Circuit issued its decision in Kumar v. Koester, dismissing a constitutional challenge to a university’s anti-discrimination policy that added “caste” as a protected class.
Effective January 1, 2022, California State University’s Policy Prohibiting Discrimination, Harassment, Sexual Misconduct, Sexual Exploitation, Dating Violence, Domestic Violence, Stalking, and Retaliation was amended to include caste as a protected category. It defined “Nationality Race or Ethnicity” to include “color, caste, or ancestry,” but did not explicitly define “caste.” Two Hindu professors sued, arguing that the policy violated their constitutional rights under the Due Process Clause and the Religious Clauses of the First Amendment. The district court dismissed the Due Process claim for lack of standing and ruled in favor of CSU on the religious claims.
On appeal, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling on Due Process grounds and vacated the decision on the religious claims, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing to assert them.
- Due Process Claim: The court found no sufficient injury because the plaintiffs did not claim an intention to engage in religious practices that could be considered caste discrimination or harassment under the policy. Instead, they explicitly stated that they “abhorred” the caste system and intended to comply with the policy. The court also rejected their argument that self-censorship constituted a legal injury, as they failed to show a credible threat of enforcement against them.
- Religious Clause Claims: The Free Exercise claim failed because the plaintiffs did not demonstrate that the policy interfered with their ability to practice their religion. Their claim was based solely on offense at the perceived association of Hinduism with caste discrimination. The Establishment Clause claim also failed, as the plaintiffs did not show that the policy was hostile toward religion or caused them a “spiritual injury.” Without an actual injury, the court ruled they had no standing.
The Court drew on various sources to define “caste”, referring to it as an “expansive term referring to social hierarchies that exist across the world in many religions and societies…” The Court also noted that “caste” is not exclusively a religious concept, relying on Supreme Court precedent often discussing caste as a social, but not a religious concept. This ruling is significant in the ongoing debate over caste protections in anti-discrimination laws. While the court did not rule on the constitutionality of caste as a protected class, the case underscores the importance of proper standing in future legal challenges. Employers in California should stay informed about developments in this area and ensure compliance with evolving legal standards in workplace policies and practices.
