LEGAL BRIEF
Subject: Whistleblower Retaliation, Compliance Violations, and Age Discrimination — Plaintiff
v. Mphasis Ltd.
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This matter centers on a senior technologist employed by Mphasis who, while supporting a high-profile initiative for client QBE, raised urgent internal concerns regarding systemic noncompliance, data security lapses, and unauthorized use of proprietary technology. Despite making good-faith disclosures through Mphasis's Office of Ethics and Compliance (OEC) and Whistleblower channels between November 20–22, 2024, Plaintiff was retaliated against, denied standard IT resources, and ultimately terminated under questionable circumstances.
The core events can be succinctly summarized by Plaintiff’s paraphrased account:
"Let me get this straight, Ruturaj:
You didn’t like George’s 66-slide deck, so you gave it to the new guy—knowing he had no Mphasis laptop—and told him to fix it over the weekend. You bypassed security, pulled it from SharePoint, and sent it to his personal email.
He trimmed it to 8 pages for QBE. You didn’t like that either. Called him a '60s programmer' and dumped another 66-slide Lucid deck on him.
Then security flags him for using his Mac—and you, Shannon, Charles and Jitendra fire him?"
This narrative underscores a disturbing sequence of disregard for compliance, ethics, and human
capital. The facts establish credible claims under Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX), Dodd-Frank, and
relevant state and federal whistleblower and labor protection statutes.
II. PLAINTIFF’S BACKGROUND
Plaintiff is an information technology expert with over 30 years of experience, including service
within the U.S. Department of Defense Cybersecurity Division. Protecting digital assets and
ensuring policy compliance are intrinsic to his professional identity.
He joined Mphasis in October 2024 after being recruited while working independently. Upon
assignment to the QBE project, one of Mphasis’s largest accounts, Plaintiff was denied a
company-issued laptop, in violation of standard provisioning policies. This created immediate
and ongoing exposure to security and regulatory risks.
III. KEY CONTRIBUTIONS
• December 2024: Enhanced document decoding efficiency for QBE by integrating a large
language model (LLM) with a linguistic engine, reducing processing time from 35
seconds to under 2 seconds—without compromising accuracy.
IV. WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION & COMPLIANCE VIOLATIONS
November 20–22, 2024: Plaintiff formally submitted complaints to Mphasis’s OEC and
Whistleblower teams, flagging:
• Lack of a corporate-issued laptop, forcing use of personal hardware.
• QBE’s non-compliance with its Acceptable Use Policy.
• Disparate treatment and contradictory instructions from management.
• Unapproved use of his proprietary technologies by Mphasis and QBE.
Following his disclosures:
• Plaintiff was pressured into withdrawing his whistleblower complaint.
• He continued to experience escalating hostility from management.
• His access to tools and systems remained restricted, impairing his job performance.
• He was terminated shortly after, under false pretext.
Notable Supporting Communications:
• Internal emails confirming Mphasis refused to issue him a laptop.
• Plaintiff’s emails detailing security concerns and IP violations.
• OEC and Whistleblower formal submissions.
• Rejections and dismissive responses from management.
• Screenshots of error messages and policy violations.
V. AGE DISCRIMINATION
Plaintiff, over age 60, became the subject of inappropriate comments and behavior:
• March 7, 2025: During a team meeting, Ruturaj Waghmode shared images of dinosaurs
in apparent reference to Plaintiff’s age.• March 12, 2025: The Mphasis Chief Risk Officer (CRO) asked about Plaintiff’s age and
referred to him as a “programmer from the 60s.”
Despite raising formal complaints about this behavior, Plaintiff faced a sudden reduction in
responsibilities, warnings for procedural adherence, and eventually account lockout and
termination.
VI. RETALIATORY ACTIONS & TERMINATION
• Feb–Mar 2025: Plaintiff’s work for QBE intensified, including tasks over weekends,
despite lack of proper tools.
• Mar 12, 2025: Plaintiff pushed back on narrowing the scope of a CRO-led investigation
and was immediately reprimanded.
• Mar 14, 2025: Plaintiff was terminated without valid cause.
• Mar 15, 2025: Mphasis legal counsel initiated a purported investigation, post-
termination.
Claims of unauthorized international work were refuted with written managerial approval for
Plaintiff’s travel to London and Cannes.
VII. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The totality of the evidence supports claims including, but not limited to:
• Whistleblower Retaliation (SOX, Dodd-Frank)
• Constructive Discharge
• Wrongful Termination
• Age Discrimination (ADEA, state statutes)
• Improper Use of Intellectual Property
• Violation of Internal Compliance and IT Security Policies
VIII. CONCLUSION
This is a textbook case of an employer mishandling protected disclosures while penalizing the
employee who raised them. Mphasis not only failed to uphold its legal and ethical obligations—it actively created a hostile environment, withheld standard equipment, mocked the Plaintiff’s
age, and punished his diligence.
Plaintiff seeks full remedy under applicable statutes for retaliation, discrimination, and damages
stemming from Mphasis’s actions and omissions.
Prepared by: Confidential Counsel to Plaintiff Date: April 12, 2025
