I'm guessing they concluded that the employee's caste is neither race nor national origin.
But I'd expect the state to argue that discrimination against an indian caste is inherently national origin based discrimination since they're unlikely to treat any non-indian as they would a dalit, and even if they did they'd be then discriminating on the national identity of the non-indian (ie, treating non-dalit indians better) OR treating all other indians as bad as they'd treat the dalit indian (unlikely, since Iyer is indian)
> But I'd expect the state to argue that discrimination against an indian caste is inherently national origin based discrimination
That would be stupid. Caste discrimination is pretty obviously not national origin discrimination. But it is race discrimination! Race and caste are identical concepts -- you get them from your parents.
(It is, however, not discrimination against a race that is recognized by American law.)
there is racial discrimination in India on top of caste discrimination.
People from the north eastern part of the country look more "asian" than "indian" folks in the south look different and darker, both groups especially Asian looking citizens are heavily discriminated against.
But I'd expect the state to argue that discrimination against an indian caste is inherently national origin based discrimination since they're unlikely to treat any non-indian as they would a dalit, and even if they did they'd be then discriminating on the national identity of the non-indian (ie, treating non-dalit indians better) OR treating all other indians as bad as they'd treat the dalit indian (unlikely, since Iyer is indian)