Sexual Harassment at Infosys – Phaneesh Murthy Vs. Reka Maximovitch

Sexual harassment at Infosys – Phaneesh Murthy vs. Reka Maximovitch

Phaneesh Murthy (Head of global sales and marketing for Infosys Technologies) quit Infosys after a former United States employee, Reka Maximovitch, sued him and the company, contending sexual harassment and wrongful termination.

REKA'S COMPLAINT

Maximovitch alleged:

"I was subjected to verbal sexual harassment, to unwanted sexual advances, and to visual sexual harassment." The organization failed "to take reasonable steps to keep harassment from occurring and recurring".

Ms. Maximovitch, who had been Mr. Murthy's executive assistant, contended that she was subjected to verbal and visual sexual harassment and unwanted sexual advances. She also contended that the company failed to take reasonable steps to keep the harassment from occurring and recurring.

Timeline:

• 18 October 1999: Reka Maximovitch joins Infosys as Phaneesh Murthy's assistant

• December 2000: Reka Maximovitch quits Infosys

• January-June 2001: Reka takes out two restraining orders against Phaneesh; of which she alleges at least one was violated

• 17 December 2001: Reka files a case against Phaneesh Murthy and Infosys for "sexual harassment and wrongful termination"

• January 2002: Phaneesh Murthy warns Nandan Nilekani of the possibility of a sexual harassment case against him and the organization. Says he is innocent and the company is not at risk

• 23 July 2002: Phaneesh Murthy quits Infosys

• 25 April 2003: Case settled out of court for $3 million, payable in a month

Background

Visakha Guidelines

Combat Law, Vol. 4, Issue 1 - Supreme Court's judgment in Visakha's case is a landmark for more than one reason. Not only was sexual harassment at the work place recognized under the Indian jurisprudence as a crucial problem faced by women workers, it also set out detailed guidelines for prevention and redressal of this malaise. In doing so, the Supreme Court did not merely confine itself into interpreting the law but went into the legislative exercise of law making. The Court travelled beyond its traditional confines of being the interpretative organ of laws and went into the terrain of law making which it has historically shied away from.

But the Supreme Court itself was conscious of taking cautious steps while indulging in law making. It declared that it was not making any law but only declaring the law which any way existed. For doing this the Court