New York Was Poised To Ban Caste Discrimination. Why Did The Landmark Bills Fail?

Last Updated:June 18, 2026, 10:46 IST

The defeat of two anti-caste bills in New York has reignited a debate within the Indian diaspora whether caste should be seen as a distinct category of discrimination outside India

New York was poised to become the first US state to explicitly prohibit caste-based discrimination in employment, housing and public accommodations. Instead, two closely watched bills — Senate Bill S6531 and Assembly Bill A6920 — failed to advance before the end of the legislative session, dealing a setback to Dalit rights activists and civil-rights groups that had spent months campaigning for their passage.

“We’re relieved that the New York Legislature recognised the profound constitutional flaws and civil rights risks inherent in these bills," said Samir Kalra, Esq., Hindu American Foundation (HAF) Managing Director. “By choosing not to advance these bills, New York policymakers protected the constitutional promise of equal protection and turned away a policy that would have effectively institutionalised ethnic profiling against a minority community."

The failure of the bills has raised a question that extends beyond New York. Should caste discrimination be treated as a distinct form of bias requiring explicit legal recognition, or can it be adequately addressed through existing protections against discrimination based on ancestry, ethnicity, religion and national origin?

As Indian-origin communities grow in influence across the US, Canada and the UK, questions around caste have become part of wider conversations about civil rights, workplace discrimination and identity politics.

What Were The New York Anti-Caste Bills?

The proposed legislation sought to amend New York’s Human Rights Law by explicitly adding caste as a protected category.

By naming caste directly, it aligns New York with jurisdictions of Seattle and California, which have already taken steps to recognize caste as a civil rights issue. It affirms that “no one should face discrimination based on birth, ancestry, or inherited status", a Hindu for Human Rights blog read.

Supporters argued that while existing laws prohibit discrimination based on race, religion, ancestry and ethnicity, caste discrimination often falls into a legal grey area. They believed that explicitly naming caste would provide clearer protections for individuals who face exclusion or bias because of their caste identity.

Journalist and author Yashica Dutt, 38, who has campaigned for anti-caste legislation in the US, previously told NPR that life for many Dalits is often a “struggle to fit in". “There’s a high sense of hypervigilance — you’re constantly monitoring your behaviour. You can never be truly comfortable," she said.

Dutt has also argued that caste discrimination is not confined to India. “Dalit people in Indian American communities in the US have talked about discrimination in their own communities. We had a bill passed in Seattle, Washington, in 2023 — it became the first state in the country to outlaw caste discrimination," she said.

The bills would have prohibited caste-based discrimination in workplaces, housing, educational institutions and public accommodations, bringing caste under the same legal framework as other protected characteristics.

For advocates, the legislation was less about creating new rights and more about clarifying that caste discrimination is unacceptable and enforceable under state law.

Why Did The Bills Fail?

The legislation ran into strong political opposition and failed to secure sufficient consensus among lawmakers before the legislative session ended.

One of the central arguments against the bills was that New York’s existing anti-discrimination laws already provide adequate protection. Opponents argued that caste-related discrimination can be addressed through categories such as ancestry, ethnicity, national origin and religion without creating a separate legal classification.

Several Hindu-American organisations also opposed the legislation, arguing that the bills unfairly singled out South Asian and Hindu communities.

Groups including the HAF contended that explicitly naming caste risked reinforcing stereotypes that associate caste exclusively with Hindus, even though caste-like hierarchies have existed across multiple religious and regional communities in South Asia.

“We are grateful to the legislators and committee members who listened to our community and recognized the serious legal and constitutional risks of this legislation. We especially want to thank Assembly member Jenifer Rajkumar for her tireless direct outreach to her fellow legislators and committee members on behalf of our community," said Shukla.

Another Coalition of Hindus of North America (CoHNA), which also opposed the bills, said, “This is a win for advocacy and civil rights in the face of immense pressure from elite academics and activists with access to powerful media and political players." Sudha Jagannathan, director of government relations at CoHNA, said, “As a Bahujan Hindu myself, I have held many meetings with lawmakers in New York for the past two years to share my story and to educate. I find it offensive that New York State would try to weaponize my identity against my own culture and traditions that provide me solace and strength."

Critics also questioned whether lawmakers had demonstrated sufficient evidence of widespread caste discrimination in New York to justify a separate legal category.

The combination of political disagreement, lobbying pressure and concerns over unintended consequences ultimately prevented the bills from moving forward.

The Battle Inside The Indian Diaspora

The New York debate highlighted deep divisions within the Indian-American community. Dalit advocacy groups, progressive organisations and some civil-rights activists argued that caste discrimination remains a lived reality in parts of the diaspora. They pointed to anecdotal accounts from workplaces, universities and community organisations where individuals allegedly faced exclusion or prejudice based on caste background.

Supporters frequently cited the growing visibility of caste-related complaints in the technology sector and academia as evidence that existing laws do not adequately address the issue.

On the other side, several Hindu-American groups argued that anti-caste legislation risks portraying Indian-origin communities through a narrow lens and unfairly associating Hindu identity with discrimination.

For many opponents, the concern was not whether caste discrimination exists but whether separate legislation is the appropriate solution.

The result has been a complex debate that blends civil-rights concerns, identity politics, immigration experiences and competing interpretations of how discrimination should be addressed in multicultural societies.

What Happened In California And Other US States?

New York is not the first battleground in America’s caste debate. In 2023, California appeared on the verge of becoming the first US state to explicitly ban caste discrimination when lawmakers passed Senate Bill 403. However, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed the legislation.

Newsom argued that California’s existing anti-discrimination framework already protected individuals facing caste-related discrimination through provisions covering ancestry, national origin and religion. Creating a separate category, he argued, was unnecessary.

That decision became a reference point for opponents of the New York legislation, who advanced similar arguments.

At the same time, some universities, local governments and private institutions in the US have moved independently to recognise caste as a protected category.

In December 2019, Brandeis University near Boston became the first US college to include caste in its non-discrimination policy. The California State University System, Colby College, Brown University, and the University of California, Davis have all adopted similar measures. Harvard University instituted caste protections for student workers in 2021 as part of its contract with its graduate student union.

The Seattle measure had the support of Dalit activist-led organisations like Equality Labs and others. The groups say caste discrimination is prevalent in diaspora communities manifesting itself in the form of social alienation and discrimination in housing, education and the tech sector where South Asians hold key roles.

Seattle became the first US city to ban caste discrimination in 2023, while several educational institutions have adopted caste-related protections within their own policies.

What Are Big Tech Companies’ Policies On Caste?

According to Reuters, among major technology companies that employ large numbers of Indian-origin professionals, Apple has been one of the most explicit in addressing caste discrimination within its US workforce.

In 2020, the company updated its employee conduct policy to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on caste, placing it alongside protected categories such as race, gender, age and ancestry.

The move came shortly after what was widely described as the first caste-discrimination employment lawsuit in the US. Filed in June 2020 by California’s civil rights regulator, the case involved a lower-caste engineer at Cisco Systems who alleged that two of his managers, both from higher castes, had discriminated against him and hindered his career advancement within the company.

Cisco denied the allegations and argued that caste was not a protected category under California law at the time.

IBM is another major technology company that explicitly addresses caste discrimination in its global policies. However, a Reuters review of internal policy documents found that companies such as Meta, Microsoft, Google and Amazon do not specifically list caste as a protected category. The companies told Reuters that they maintain a zero-tolerance approach towards caste bias, while noting that such discrimination would fall under existing protections related to ancestry, ethnicity or national origin.

Thus, the failure of New York’s anti-caste bills does not mean the debate is over. If anything, it highlights how contested the issue remains. Supporters see explicit protections as necessary recognition of a form of discrimination that has travelled beyond South Asia. Opponents argue that existing laws already provide adequate safeguards and that separate legislation risks unfairly targeting specific communities.

About the Author

Shilpy Bisht

Shilpy Bisht is a News Editor at News18, where she leads the English app operations. She writes on world affairs, health, AI, career, business, and issues affecting women and children. A former print ...Read More

News world New York Was Poised To Ban Caste Discrimination. Why Did The Landmark Bills Fail?