Forensic Assessments of Hindus with Workplace Discrimination Claims

  • Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
  • July 2025,
  • JAAPL.250035-25;
  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.29158/JAAPL.250035-25

Abstract

Hinduism is a global religion with over 1.2 billion adherents. Only about one percent of U.S. adults are Hindu, so forensic evaluators may have little experience with this population. Within the United States over the past decade, there has been a trend of Hindus filing workplace discrimination claims with emotional distress but without forensic psychiatric evaluations. Immigration challenges, unique patterns of discrimination, and intersectional identities in diverse Hindu communities may challenge evaluators who do not regularly work with Hindus. Even when Hindu evaluees see Hindu evaluators, they may not share caste, ethnic, racial, or regional affiliations, so evaluators benefit from investigating the evaluee’s intersectional identity, the connection between identity and perceived discrimination, patterns of help seeking, and levels of functioning. This article introduces evaluators to diverse U.S. Hindu populations; psychiatric, forensic, and cultural problems in discrimination-based claims; and evaluation strategies based on analyzing recent cases.

There are more than 1.1 billion Hindus worldwide, with 99 percent of the population living in only 10 countries, including 94 percent in India alone.1–2 Nearly one percent of the U.S. population, about 3.3 million people, is Hindu.3 About 87 percent of U.S. Hindus are immigrants, nine percent are children of immigrants, and the remainder are third generation or older or converts to Hinduism.4 Hindus have the highest education and income levels among U.S. religious groups: 36 percent report annual family income greater than $100,000 versus 19 percent of non-Hindus, and 77 percent have bachelor’s degrees versus 27 percent of non-Hindus.5

Despite their affluent socioeconomic standing, studies indicate that immigration is a social determinant of health affecting access to mental health services.6 Compared with native-born Americans, Hindu immigrants are less likely to access such services because of the stigma of receiving psychiatric care in their birth countries7 and more likely to choose religious services to cope with distress.8–9 Immigrant Hindus worldwide have higher suicide rates than native populations, which families may attribute to interpersonal conflicts, not mental disorders.10 For immigrants generally, acculturative stress can be associated with anxiety and depression,11 eating disorders,12 and psychotic disorders,13 compared with immigrants with successful acculturation.

U.S. Hindus belong to diverse races, ethnicities, and castes, underscoring the need for culturally competent assessments. About 11 percent of Asian-Americans identify as Hindu, and two-thirds of Indian-Americans practice or feel close to Hinduism.14 According to the U.S. Census, 91 percent are Asian, four percent are White, two percent are Black, and one percent are Latinx.15 Forensic evaluators may be unfamiliar with the term “caste,” and the Pew Research Center has characterized it as “a social hierarchy passed down through families, and it can dictate the professions a person can work in as well as aspects of their social lives, including whom they can marry.”16 The U.S. Census does not record caste identifications, but data can be inferred from other sources. The 2020 Indian American Attitudes Survey surveyed 1,200 respondents of whom 54 percent were Hindus; of Hindu respondents, 53 percent of foreign-born U.S. Hindus identified with a caste versus 34 percent of U.S.-born Hindus,17 showing a generation effect in caste-related self-identifications. Of those identifying with a caste, 83 percent categorized themselves as general or upper caste; 16 percent self-categorized as “Other Backward Caste,” an Indian term to describe those who have been historically marginalized; and one percent categorized themselves as from a scheduled tribe and the Dalit scheduled caste (formerly known through the pejorative term “untouchable”).17 A survey of Hindus in India found that 30 percent identified as general or upper caste, 36 percent as other backward caste, nine percent as scheduled tribes, and 35 percent as scheduled castes.16 Intra-Hindu differences highlight the advantages of investigating how identities based on race, ethnicity, caste, national origin, and religion intersect in an individual’s social positioning.18

Few studies have addressed Hindus with workplace discrimination claims.19 Discrimination entails negative behaviors or practices that differentiate between individuals or groups based on an ascribed or perceived trait.20 Researchers in the 2019 Experiences with Religious Discrimination Study of 5,131 adults stated, “Hindu adults (14.4%), for instance, are significantly more likely than Christian adults (1.5%) to report being fired from a job due to their religion” (Ref. 21, p 6). Hindus may also face workplace discrimination from other Hindus. Thirty women Dalit engineers issued a statement in 2020 against caste bias from upper-caste Hindu men in the U.S. information technology industry,22 indicating a need to evaluate intersectional identities in claims. American Psychiatric Association and American Psychological Association task forces23–24 treat discrimination as a social determinant of health. This article identifies forensic assessment strategies for evaluators based on analyses of medico-legal scholarship and legal cases. Psychiatric assessments for discrimination-related claims assess whether the plaintiff has a psychiatric diagnosis (with duration and symptoms); the cause of the disorder in relation to workplace events; if the disorder resulted in impairments, damages, or losses; and plaintiff expectations for recovery, treatment, and functioning.25–26 Discrimination cases are legal claims based on identities, and assessing intersectional identities comports with the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law’s (AAPL) Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment27 and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision’s (DSM-5-TR’s) recommendations to complete cultural formulations with all people because intersectional identities shape experiences of distress.28 The following sections cover forensic matters in discrimination claims, cases of Hindus alleging emotional distress from discrimination, and cultural problems in forensic assessments that differ from treatment contexts. A Nexis-Uni search shows that Hindus have made emotional distress and workplace discrimination claims over the past decade without including forensic evaluators, and this article provides assessment strategies for evaluators in future cases.

Discrimination

Social determinants of mental disorders vary by community.29 Evaluators may need information about the general mental health consequences of discrimination and specific forms of discrimination in Hindu communities that might have preceded current claims. This section summarizes both types of data for U.S. Hindu communities.

Mental Health Consequences

Discrimination can cause anger, anxiety, depression, posttraumatic stress, and substance use.30 Some people experiencing discrimination may develop paranoia or psychosis.31 Symptoms are worse for children than adults.32 Worldwide, immigrant youth exposed to discrimination have lower self-esteem and more depression, anxiety, impulsivity, and delinquency.33 Considering that 96 percent of U.S. Hindus came as immigrants or from immigrant parents, evaluators should ask whether Hindu evaluees faced discrimination in their youth to compare past with present functioning and limitations.

Discrimination Patterns

There are no statistics on U.S. Hindu groups by country of origin. According to the Hindu-American Foundation, U.S. Hindus mostly come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Afghanistan, Nepal, Bhutan, Sri Lanka, Trinidad and Tobago, and Guyana.34 Country-specific patterns of discrimination could be relevant in current claims.27–28

Caste

In India, Nepal, and Bangladesh, lower-caste Hindus face decreased educational advancement, employment opportunities, and social connections compared with higher-caste Hindus.35,–,37 Inter-caste marriages can lead to depression, anxiety, and suicidal behaviors when extended families ostracize newlyweds.38

Race

Indian migration to Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago in the 1800s led to the homogenization of Hindu beliefs and practices, caste identities, and ethnic identity.39 In both countries, race, not religion, has been the basis of competition between Africans and Indians.40 Unlike Hindus elsewhere, Caribbean Hindus in the U.S. may experience discrimination from South Asians because they are perceived as historically distant from India.41

Generational Cohort

The children of Hindu immigrants in the U.S. experience unique discrimination compared with their parents. Many have grown up in Christian-dominated contexts, exposed to ethno-racial exclusion and proselytization.42 Finding belonging with other children of Hindu immigrants in college, this second-generation cohort may identify more with a religious identity as “Hindu-American” or a regional identity as “South Asian American.”43

These differences illustrate advantages in assessing intersectional identities. Discrimination based on caste, race, and generational cohort may vary by country of origin. Forensic evaluators can inquire about past trauma and discrimination in their developmental and social histories.27–28 Asking whether evaluees sought medical or psychiatric care helps to establish past functioning and limitations before current discrimination claims.

Forensic Frameworks

Gold has written overviews of psychiatric evaluations in discrimination and harassment claims.25–26 Multiple complaints, such as wrongful termination or intentional infliction of emotional distress, can arise from the same alleged incident and are evaluated under federal and state civil rights antidiscrimination statutes. The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 has 11 titles that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, and sex.44 The Civil Rights Acts of 1964 and 199145 do not define discrimination or require that a psychological injury is necessary to establish an actionable claim, but it is difficult to establish emotional distress without a psychiatric diagnosis.26 Forensic evaluators are most likely to assess intentional infliction of emotional distress for religion-based discrimination claims under Title VII federal and state laws prohibiting discrimination by private and federal employers for job applicants and employees.27 The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) notes that, from 1992 to 2020, complaints of religion-based workplace discrimination increased from 1,388 to 2,404 cases22 but soared to 13,814 complaints in 2022 after workers alleged vaccine-related religious discrimination during the COVID-19 pandemic.46

The legal concept of “proximate cause” requires that an alleged discriminatory act “more likely than not” or with a “reasonable medical certainty” caused the mental disorder.28 I created Table 1 to list factors for forensic evaluators to assess, according to Gold.25 Asterisks indicate factors that may be unique for Hindus based on cultural orientations, immigration histories, and past discrimination, if present.

View this table:
Table 1

Domains for Psychiatric Assessment in Discrimination-Related Claims: Created from Gold25

Gold25 highlights four consultation questions in a discrimination evaluation: whether the evaluee has a psychiatric diagnosis; the cause of diagnosis in relation to workplace events; whether the disorder resulted in impairments, damages, or losses; and the evaluee’s expectations for recovery, treatment, and functioning. The sources of information to answer these questions include direct interviews, interviews with third parties, and reviews of medical, legal, psychiatric, pharmacy, EEOC, investigative (workplace and law enforcement), and employment (job descriptions and personnel) records.25–26 Evaluators should consider alternate explanations for plaintiff reactions, such as other stressors (i.e., marital problems), either past or concurrent; a preexisting disorder exacerbated by the alleged act; and the emotional toll of litigation.25–26 Stressors like conflicts with coworkers, performance improvement plans, and layoffs might not be discrimination but also cause symptoms and impairments.25–26

Carter and Forsyth47 identify challenges in researching workplace discrimination and doing evaluations: not all organizations have formal grievance procedures, so plaintiffs may not know if they have legal protections; the EEOC requires claims to be filed in a specific format and timeframe to proceed; even though minor acts of racism can have psychological effects, the law specifies high standards for damages that can be difficult to meet; and minoritized individuals may decline forensic evaluations out of stigma or shame.

Case Review

This analysis is based on Nexis-Uni searches in January 2025 of legal cases from 2015 to the present in which individuals self-identifying as Hindus made Title VII allegations with emotional distress. A first search pairing the terms “Title VII” and “Hindu” with “psychiatrist” or “psychologist” produced no studies. A second search with the terms “Title VII,” “Hindu,” and “emotional distress” yielded 14 cases. After removing duplicates and irrelevant cases, five remained. Because incidents can cause multiple claims, this analysis focused only on discrimination claims and legal reasoning. Notably, no plaintiff submitted evidence linking a psychiatric diagnosis to emotional distress from discrimination, as discernible in court opinions.

In Aluru v. Anesthesia Consultants, Prof'l Corp.,48 46-year-old anesthesiologist Deepika Aluru alleged discrimination based on religion, race, age, and gender under Title VII against her former employer, an anesthesiology group, and individual defendants. From 2001 through 2005, she received positive reviews. In 2006, her supervisor received complaints from surgeons that she could not manage cases simultaneously. In 2012, the group lost a hospital contract. The group’s president terminated her and two others while hiring two white males under the age of 40. Dr. Aluru filed a complaint with the EEOC, claiming that her supervisor said they “don’t need people of [her] kind” (Ref. 48, p 1127) and providing a coworker’s testimony of her supervisor calling her a “Hindu bitch.”48 She contended that white colleagues received preferential vacation time and call schedules. The court found that, although the statements could suggest that her supervisor was prejudiced, no evidence showed that the group’s president knew about the statements, that vacations or scheduling were linked to discrimination, or that she was terminated for reasons other than work nonperformance. The court dismissed all federal claims.

In Chauhan v. MM Hotel Mgmt. LLC,49 banquet server Ashok Chauhan alleged discrimination based on religion, race, and national origin under Title VII and state laws against his former employer, a hotel management company, and individual defendants. Mr. Chauhan worked there since 2000 and claimed that a Muslim supervisor hired in 2003 “repeatedly” made five types of discriminatory comments, such as “What are these dirty animals doing here?” in reference to Hindu gods (religion); “Why are these white people wearing these Indian dresses? They are like the Jews making people follow them” (race); and “Indians are bullies” (national origin) (Ref. 49, p 3). Mr. Chauhan also claimed discrimination for being requested to cut his hair several times, which he refused because of religious beliefs. After he provided a letter of support from his priest, the requests stopped. Mr. Chauhan contacted the EEOC in 2017 and alleged that his supervisor retaliated with fewer shifts. The court found that Mr. Chauhan did not provide dates of the five statements; per the court, “Six incidents over a fifteen-year period are not sufficiently frequent or severe enough to constitute a hostile work environment” (Ref. 49, p 20). The court dismissed the hostile work environment and Title VII disparate treatment claims.

In Varma v. TCC Wireless, LLC,50 store manager Vikram Varma alleged discrimination based on religion and ethnicity under Title VII against his employer TCC Wireless, a phone services company, and his former supervisor. TCC hired Mr. Varma in May 2016, and his contract included an arbitration clause. He left TCC in September 2017 and returned a month later after being promised a promotion. He signed an offer letter, but not another contract specifying arbitration. He learned that TCC demoted him to work under a new supervisor, a Pakistani, who “frequently harassed Varma based on his Indian ethnicity and Hindu faith” (Ref. 50, p 727), and denied him vacations for Hindu holidays but granted vacations for Muslim holidays to others. The defendants moved to compel arbitration. The court found that the first employment arbitration clause did not cover the second employment, refusing to compel arbitration.

In Palani Karupaiyan v. CVS Health Corp.,51 an engineer alleged discrimination based on 11 protected characteristics, including race, color, ethnicity, and religion under Title VII, against CVS Health Corporation, staffing firm APN Consulting, data analytics firm Active Health Management, Aetna, and individual defendants after two months of employment. Mr. Karupaiyan described himself as a Hindu from the Indian state of Tamil Nadu. National origin was relevant to discrimination claims in that Tamil Nadu’s capital was formerly known as Madras. In June 2019, he began work as an independent contractor. A Hindu Aetna employee said that, “he speaks like a black apple” (Ref. 51, p 6), a Hindu Vice President from APN Consulting called him a “black old Madrasi,” and APN Consulting’s Hindu founder said that “he would ‘beat [Plaintiff] because [he is] black, sick, madrasi tamil if [he] request[s] money’” (Ref. 51, p 7). Mr. Karupaiyan was told to “not eat religious food at [his] desk,” even though others ate at their desks (Ref. 51, p 52). During his termination, a Hindu Aetna employee told a white non-Hindu Aetna employee to “kick the black old tamil guy out of here immediately”; the white non-Hindu Aetna employee brought him into the room, said, “you black guy, go back to India” (Ref. 51, p 68), and escorted him out.51 The court did not find evidence that Mr. Karupaiyan suffered adverse employment as a Hindu and dismissed the discrimination claim based on religion but allowed claims based on race to proceed because of evidence about his termination.52

In Patra v. Pa. State Sys. of Higher Educ.,53 professors Harisadhan Patra and Petula Vaz alleged discrimination based on race and religion under Title VII against the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education, Bloomsburg University, and individual defendants. When the couple were hired in 2010, a college dean and department chair orally agreed to cover their relocation costs, provide them with $75,000 for two laboratories, and allow them to teach in their areas of expertise, although these were not in written contracts. Drs. Patra and Vaz claimed they were denied relocation and laboratory funds, and Dr.Vaz had to teach a general course. Their contracts were renewed for the first two years. In their third year, the assistant dean mocked the Hindu practice of offering food to God, and the department chair made statements like, “Indian men have vaginas” and “cannot control their wives.”53 After complaining to the EEOC, Dr. Patra’s teaching assignments changed. After the fourth year, the university did not renew their contracts, pointing to deficiencies in student evaluations and research productivity. In district court, the defendants filed for summary judgment, and the plaintiffs appealed. The court of appeals ruled that statements “made about the plaintiffs’ race or religion, while offensive, were too isolated to support a hostile work environment claim.” (Ref. 53, p 15).

Acknowledging that Nexis-Uni does not index cases settled out of court or in state jurisdictions, these cases reveal trends. First, Hindus have made emotional distress claims without involving psychiatrists or psychologists, as corroborated in separate Nexis-Uni searches and analyzing each case. The court actually noted in Patra: “There is nothing in the record to support the plaintiffs’ claims of defamation, intentional infliction of emotional distress, or loss of consortium” (Ref. 53, p 18). Why Hindu plaintiffs have not engaged forensic evaluators in emotional distress claims stemming from alleged discrimination merits future research.

Second, each plaintiff alleged discrimination based on religion and at least another identity trait: age and gender (Aluru), ethnicity (Varma and Karupaiyan), national origin (Chauhan and Karupaiyan), and race (Aluru, Chauhan, Karupaiyan, and Patra). There are several potential explanations. One could be legal strategy, with the court noting that Mr. Karupaiyan was “overinclusive.”51 Another is intersectionality affecting workplace disputes, as people perceive each other based on unique combinations of identities.54 Indeed, the EEOC acknowledges that nondominant religions can be associated with certain races and national origins.55 Other salient identities included gender for Dr. Aluru, but not Dr. Vaz; race in four cases; and ethnicity for Mr. Varma and Mr. Karupaiyan, who sued others of South Asian, even Hindu, ancestry.

Third, the courts formulated plaintiff self-identifications and explanations of distress differently than in treatment relationships. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5)56 and DSM-5-TR28 suggest that cultural formulations may help to evaluate patients with discrimination-related distress. DSM-5’s Cross-Cultural Issues Subgroup encourages clinicians to ask how patients self-identify and explain distress as a part of patient-centered care.57 This goal differs from forensic cultural formulations that aim to furnish an evaluee’s account objectively within available evidence.58 Whereas DSM-556 and DSM-5-TR28 affirm patient explanations connecting identities to explanations of distress in treatment relationships, explanations are triable in legal contexts. Courts used the four-part standard of McDonnell Douglas59 for plaintiffs to show: membership in a protected class, qualification for employment, suffering from an adverse employment action, and minimal evidence showing the employer’s discriminatory intent. Each court48,–,53 accepted prima facie that Hindu plaintiffs belonged to Title VII protected classes but found that explanations of distress in Aluru, Chauhan, and Patra, did not satisfy the fourth part, whereas the court in Karupaiyan sifted through his intersections of identity to find evidence of racial discrimination.

Finally, the cases exemplify Carter and Forsyth’s47 point about high legal standards in claims of distress. In Aluru, the court noted that she might have succeeded in a disparate treatment claim against her supervisor, but not wrongful termination.48 Courts in Chauhan49 and Patra53 acknowledged that discriminatory statements, although offensive, were not so severe or pervasive as to constitute a hostile work environment, but the severity of Mr. Karupaiyan’s termination circumstances was sufficient for claims to proceed.51–52 Herein lies a value of forensic evaluations in emotional distress claims: whether there are single or multiple incidents of discrimination, experts can help factfinders by defining psychological injuries, substantiating causation between incidents and damages, portraying the subjective reality to which the plaintiff is responding, and addressing alternative explanations.60

Forensic Cultural Formulations

The AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Assessment recommends cultural formulations in discrimination claims.19 There has been no peer-reviewed research on using cultural formulations to assess workplace religious discrimination, and the above analysis indicates a need to modify DSM-5-TR’s format for Hindus. These modifications draw upon versions of the Cultural Formulation Interview (CFI)28 and forensic scholarship.

Cultural Identity of the Individual

According to DSM-5-TR, clinicians describe “culturally defined characteristics that may influence interpersonal relationships, access to resources, and developmental and current challenges” (Ref. 28, p 861). The task is determining how the evaluee and others perceive the evaluee’s identity. The CFI has open-ended questions: “For you, what are the most important aspects of your background or identity?” and “Are there any aspects of your background or identity that make a difference to your problem?” (Ref. 28, p 865). To examine others’ perceptions, Heilbrun et al.54 suggest: “Have you ever been treated differently because of your race? How did you feel about being treated differently? What did you do?” (Ref. 54, p 481) Religion, ethnicity, national origin, age, and gender can also be explored based on the specific complaint. An informant CFI examines the evaluee’s identity by asking collateral sources, such as family, friends, and coworkers: “What are most important aspects of the individual’s identity?” (Ref. 28, p 869).

Carter and Forsyth47 propose a “racial-cultural assessment” of the ethno-racial compositions of the evaluee’s family, neighborhood, school, and workplaces to consider previous experiences of discrimination that inform current responses. Caste, race, generational cohort, and national origin may also be relevant, and researchers adapting the CFI with Hindus suggest this question: “Do you think you face problems or discrimination based on your religion, caste, being a man or woman, or anything else related to who you are?” (Ref. 61, p 19). The court in Chauhan underscored self-other perceptions of identity, noting, “Plaintiff notes that ‘Defendant Haggag’s discriminatory animus was especially pointed because nationality and religious differences between Hindus from India and neighboring Pakistani Muslims—is a source of well documented and ongoing conflict’” (Ref. 48, p 5). Comparing information across sources facilitates objective interpretations about identity as perceived by the evaluee and others.54

Cultural Concepts of Distress

According to DSM-5-TR,“Priority symptoms, perceived seriousness of the illness, the level of associated stigma, and anticipated outcomes are all relevant. Elicit the individual’s and family’s or friends’ help-seeking expectations and plans, as well as patterns of self-coping” (Ref. 28, p 861). To establish proximate cause of discrimination-related psychological injuries, evaluators should assess the ethno-racial identities, power, and influence of individuals in alleged acts of discrimination; their number, nature, intensity, and duration; perceptions from all parties about the severity, controllability, and suddenness of the events; and the evaluee’s responses.25,26,47

There is debate on how evaluators should formulate distress. Some suggest that a formal diagnosis supports injury claims and helps to assess recovery and prognosis.28 Others note that, apart from egregious incidents that meet criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder, there is no DSM diagnosis for the range of psychological reactions to discriminatory acts, so limiting evaluations to diagnoses can underestimate injuries.62 Carter and Forsyth recommend evaluating for injuries, not disorders, by illustrating damages through indexes of psychological functioning and describing symptoms in response to alleged acts.47 A CFI-based, semistructured interview known as the University of Connecticut Racial/Ethnic Stress & Trauma Scale (UnRESTS) has been used in forensic contexts,63 and its questions can be adapted to ask about caste, ethnicity, religion, and national origin. Semistructured interviews may help evaluators when symptom assessment scales have not been normed in evaluee populations.64

There are additional considerations for Hindu evaluees. Many Hindus cope and seek help through religious services.7,–,9 The CFI’s Explanatory Module supplementary module suggests asking, “What do you think is the best way to deal with this kind of problem?” and “What do your family, friends, or others in your community think is the best way of dealing with this problem?” (Ref. 65, p 1) The Help Seeking supplementary module may identify collaterals to interview for evaluee responses to events: “Are you involved in activities that involve other people related to spiritual, religious, or moral tradition?” and “Have you sought help from any other kind of helper to cope with your problem other than going to the doctor?” (Ref. 65, p 8)

Social Stressors and Supports

DSM-5-TR specifies that this domain includes social determinants, such as “access to resources (e.g., housing, transportation) and opportunities (e.g., education, employment); exposure to racism, discrimination, and systemic institutional stigmatization” (Ref. 28, p 861). In workplace discrimination claims, forensic experts recommend clarifying past traumas, distress, and impairments in relation to current claims.25 Carter and Forsyth47 advise that evaluators can use a racial-cultural assessment to hypothesize whether current responses appear downplayed, reasonable, or exaggerated. For Hindus, immigration stressors and country-specific patterns of discrimination may cause impairments predating current allegations that are worth assessment.

Evaluators can choose among assessment strategies based on circumstances. The Immigrants and Refugees CFI supplementary module includes open-ended questions about past discrimination: “Some people experience hardship, persecution, or even violence before leaving their country of origin. Has this been the case for you or members of your family?” (Ref. 65, p 13) So does the Cultural Identity supplementary module: “Have you experienced any difficulties related to your background, such as discrimination, stereotyping, or being misunderstood?” (Ref. 65, p 6) The Everyday Discrimination Scale66 and Work Discrimination Scale67 are widely used to assess discrimination,68 and forensic evaluators can adjudge their applicability to evaluees.

The Clinical Relationship

DSM-5-TR notes “Include problems eliciting symptoms, misunderstanding of the cultural and clinical significance of symptoms and behaviors, and difficulty establishing or maintaining the rapport needed for accurate assessment” (Ref. 28, p 861). Forensic scholarship cautions that differences in evaluator-evaluee identities can introduce biases in evaluations19 based on how evaluators self-present, ask questions, elicit responses, and draw interpretations.54 Evaluators with minoritized identities may face distinct risks in siding with minoritized evaluees or denying discrimination altogether.69 To mitigate bias, evaluators can interview subjects in their primary languages with structured interviews, psychological assessments, and scientifically established criteria, seeking consultations as necessary.70 In workplace discrimination, evaluators should avoid opining on the truth of legal claims and focus on the evaluee’s subjective experiences.47 Psychoanalysts have addressed countertransference reactions that are specific to Hindus; non-Hindu clinicians have used their interviews to explore unfamiliar Hindu beliefs and behaviors irrelevant to the consultation,71 and Hindu clinicians have had to work through caste, ethnic, and regional differences with Hindu patients,72 which may be relevant to consider. The Patient-Clinician CFI supplementary module includes questions that forensic evaluators can use for introspection: “How did you feel about your relationship with the patient? Did cultural similarities and differences influence your relationship? In what way?” (Ref. 65, p 9).

Appraising the clinical significance of symptoms and behaviors in workplace discrimination claims may take the form of estimating damages. As Gold and Stejskal26 note, damage estimates should consider current functioning, comparisons of functioning before and after alleged discrimination acts, epidemiological information about the course of a disorder, and recovery based on treatment engagement. Cultural orientations influence treatment preferences, namely, what kinds of problems merit medical attention, which treatments are acceptable, and how long people want treatment.73 The Explanatory Model CFI supplementary module has helpful questions: “What do you think is the best way to deal with this kind of problem?” and “What do your family, friends, or others in your community think is the best way of dealing with this kind of problem?” (Ref. 65, p 1). Answers can provide information for evaluators to opine on recovery based on treatment engagement.

Overall Cultural Assessment

Forensic experts suggest that evaluators document when the Outline for Cultural Formulation (OCF) and CFI are used in reports but only include information pertinent to the opinion, either in a standalone section or integrated with the mental status examination.74

Conclusion

In January 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice established an “Engaging and Building Relationships with Hindu American Communities” initiative to familiarize Hindus with civil rights,75 which Hindu groups have welcomed to spread awareness about discrimination.76–77 Forensic evaluators may receive requests to assess Hindus for workplace discrimination. Hindus have immigration histories, configurations of intersectional identities, and past experiences of discrimination that could be unfamiliar to evaluators. This article has summarized these points and conducted an analysis of Hindus making emotional distress claims in discrimination cases over the past decade to identify relevant domains of assessment. It has proposed a cultural formulation approach to assessment with specific strategies for evaluators.

Footnotes

  • Disclosures of financial or other potential conflicts of interest: None.

References

  1. 1.
    ↵
    EvansJ. 7 facts about Hindus around the world [Internet]; 2022. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/10/26/7-facts-about-hindus-around-the-world/. Accessed April 7, 2024
    Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    ↵
    Pew Research Center. Hindus [Internet]; 2015. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/04/02/hindus/. Accessed September 20, 2024
    Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    ↵
    Pew Research Center. About three-in-ten U.S. adults are now religiously unaffiliated [Internet]; 2021. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/12/14/about-three-in-ten-u-s-adults-are-now-religiously-unaffiliated/. Accessed July 15, 2024
    Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    ↵
    Pew Research Center. Chapter 3: Demographic profiles of religious groups [Internet]; 2015. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2015/05/12/chapter-3-demographic-profiles-of-religious-groups/. Accessed September 21, 2024
    Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ↵
    IANS. Hindu population up in US, becomes fourth-largest faith. India Today [Internet]; 2015 May 13. Available from: https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/hindu-population-up-in-united-states-becomes-fourth-largest-faith-252755-2015-05-13. Accessed January 21, 2025
    Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    ↵
    CastañedaHHolmesSMMadrigalDS. Immigration as a social determinant of health. Annu Rev Public Health. 2015 Mar; 36:375–92
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  7. 7.
    ↵
    RamakrishnanPRaneADiasA. Indian health care professionals’ attitude towards spiritual healing and its role in alleviating stigma of psychiatric services. J Relig Health. 2014 Dec; 53(6):1800–14
    Google ScholarPubMed
  8. 8.
    ↵
    StroopeSKentBVZhangY. Mental health and self-rated health among U.S. South Asians: The role of religious group involvement. Ethn Health. 2022 Feb; 27(2):388–406
    Google ScholarPubMed
  9. 9.
    ↵
    YangFEbaughHR. Transformations in new immigrant religions and their global implications. Am Sociol Rev. 2001 Apr; 66(2):269–88
    Google ScholarCrossRefWeb of Science
  10. 10.
    ↵
    PatelSPGawAC. Suicide among immigrants from the Indian subcontinent: A review. Psychiatr Serv. 1996 May; 47(5):517–21
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  11. 11.
    ↵
    TineoPBixterMTPolanco-RomanL. The impact of acculturative stress on internalizing problems among racially and ethnically minoritized adolescents and young adults in the U.S.: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2024 Sep; 357:117192
    Google ScholarPubMed
  12. 12.
    ↵
    ForbesNYangLCLimS. Intersectional discrimination and its impact on Asian American women’s mental health: A mixed-methods scoping review. Front Public Health. 2023 Feb 27; 11:993396
    Google ScholarPubMed
  13. 13.
    ↵
    IlićBŠvabVSedićB. Mental health in domesticated immigrant population—A systematic review. Psychiatr Danub. 2017 Sep; 29(3):273–81
    Google ScholarPubMed
  14. 14.
    ↵
    MohamedBRotoloM. Hinduism among Asian Americans [Internet]; 2023. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2023/10/11/hinduism-among-asian-americans/. Accessed April 7, 2024
    Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ↵
    Pew Research Center. Hindus [Internet]; 2024. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-tradition/hindu/. Accessed September 21, 2024
    Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    ↵
    Pew Research Center. Attitudes about caste [Internet]; 2021. Available from: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2021/06/29/attitudes-about-caste/. Accessed January 21, 2025
    Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    ↵
    BadrinathanSKapurDKayJ. Social Realities of Indian Americans: Results from the 2020 Indian American Attitudes Survey. Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; 2021. Available from: https://carnegie-production-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/files/files__Vaishnav_etal_IAASpt3_Final.pdf. Accessed June 24, 2025
    Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    ↵
    AggarwalNK. Basic aspects and clinical implications of Hinduism. In MofficHSGogineniRRPeteetJR., editors. Eastern Religions, Spirituality, and Psychiatry: An Expansive Perspective on Mental Health and Illness. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature; 2024. p. 89-100
    Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    ↵
    SchneiderRCColemanDCEcklundEHDanielsD. How religious discrimination is perceived in the workplace: Expanding the view. Socius. 2022; 8
    Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    ↵
    Al RamiahAHewstoneMDovidioJF. The social psychology of discrimination: Theory, measurement and consequences. In BondLMcGinnityFRussellH, editors. Making Equality Count: Irish and International Research Measuring Equality and Discrimination. Dublin, Ireland: The Liffey Press; 2010. p. 84-112
    Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    ↵
    ScheitleCPEcklundEH. Individuals’ experiences with religious hostility, discrimination, and violence: Findings from a new national survey. Socius. 2020; 6
    Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    ↵
    The Washington Post. A statement on caste bias in Silicon Valley from 30 Dalit women engineers. The Washington Post [Internet]; 2020 Oct 27. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/context/a-statement-on-caste-bias-in-silicon-valley-from-30-dalit-women-engineers/d692b4f8-2710-41c3-9d5f-ea55c13bcc50/?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_16. Accessed December 2, 2024
    Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Report of the Presidential Task Force on the Social Determinants of Health [Internet]; 2022. Available from: https://www.psychiatry.org/getmedia/b73d3f7b-94dd-4a52-9267-e83328247325/2022-APA-TFSDMH-Boardof-Trustees-December-Report.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2024
    Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    ↵
    American Psychological Association. Report of the 2021 American Psychological Association Presidential Task Force on Psychology and Health Equity [Internet]; 2022. Available from: https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2023-59875-015. Accessed September 23, 2024
    Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    ↵
    GoldLS. Psychiatric evaluation in discrimination and harassment claims. In GoldLHFriersonRL, editors. The American Psychiatric Association Publishing Textbook of Forensic Psychiatry, Third Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018. p. 213-30
    Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    ↵
    GoldLHStejskalWJ. Employment discrimination and harassment. In DroginEYDattilioFMSadoffRLGutheilTG, editors. Handbook of Forensic Assessment: Psychological and Psychiatric Perspectives. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011. p. 303-34
    Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ↵
    GlancyGDAshPBathEPJ. AAPL practice guideline for the forensic assessment. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2015 Jun; 43(2 Suppl):S3–53
    Google ScholarFull TextPubMed
  28. 28.
    ↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2022
    Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    ↵
    AlegríaMAlvarezKChengMFalgas-BagueI. Recent advances on social determinants of mental health: Looking fast forward. Am J Psychiatry. 2023 Jul; 180(7):473–82
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.
    ↵
    PascoeEARichmanLS. Perceived discrimination and health: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2009 Jul; 135(4):531–54
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  31. 31.
    ↵
    PearceJRafiqSSimpsonJVareseF. Perceived discrimination and psychosis: A systematic review of the literature. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2019 Sep; 54(9):1023–44
    Google ScholarPubMed
  32. 32.
    ↵
    SchmittMTBranscombeNRPostmesTGarciaA. The consequences of perceived discrimination for psychological well-being: A meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2014 Jul; 140(4):921–48
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  33. 33.
    ↵
    MetznerFAdedejiAWichmannML-Y. Experiences of discrimination and everyday racism among children and adolescents with an immigrant background—Results of a systematic literature review on the impact of discrimination on the developmental outcomes of minors worldwide. Front Psychol. 2022 May; 13:805941
    Google ScholarPubMed
  34. 34.
    ↵
    Hindu American Foundation. Comments on proposed information collection on 2020 census, Docket No. USBC-2018-0005 [Internet]; 2018. Available from: https://www.hinduamerican.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Hindu-American-Foundation_2020-Census-Formal-Comments_8.7.18.pdf. Accessed September 23, 2024
    Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    ↵
    JilohaRC. Deprivation, discrimination, human rights violation, and mental health of the deprived. Indian J Psychiatry. 2010 Jul; 52(3):207–12
    Google ScholarPubMed
  36. 36.
    ↵
    GuptaACoffeyD. Caste, religion, and mental health in India. Popul Res Policy Rev. 2020 Dec; 39(6):1119–41
    Google ScholarPubMed
  37. 37.
    ↵
    KabirAMaitrotMRLAliA. Qualitative exploration of sociocultural determinants of health inequities of Dalit population in Dhaka City, Bangladesh. BMJ Open. 2018 Dec; 8(12):e022906
    Google ScholarCrossRefAbstract/Full TextPubMed
  38. 38.
    ↵
    AtreyaAShresthaMAcharyaJ. Inter-caste lovers’ suicide pact—Case report from Nepal. Med Leg J. 2018 Jun; 86(2):103–6
    Google ScholarPubMed
  39. 39.
    ↵
    van der VeerPVertovecS. Brahmanism abroad: On Caribbean Hinduism as an ethnic religion. Ethnology. 1991 April; 30(2):149–66
    Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    ↵
    MahabirK. Whose nation is this? The struggle over national and ethnic identity in Trinidad and Guyana. Caribbean Studies. 1996 Jul-Dec; 29(2):283–302
    Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    ↵
    BacchusNS. Belonging and boundaries in Little Guyana: Conflict, culture, and identity in Richmond Hill, NY. Ethnicities. 2020; 20(5):896–914
    Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    ↵
    JoshiKY. Religion in the lives of second-generation Indian American Hindus. In ChenCJeungR, editors. Sustaining Faith Traditions: Race, Ethnicity, and Religion among the Latino and Asian American Second Generation. New York, NY: New York University Press; 2012. p. 241-58
    Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    ↵
    KurienPA. Who speaks for Indian Americans? Religion, ethnicity, and political formation. Am Q. 2007; 59(3):759–83
    Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    ↵
    U.S. Congress. Civil Rights Act [Internet]; 1964. Available from: https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/civil-rights-act. Accessed September 27, 2024
    Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    ↵
    U.S. Congress. S.1745—Civil Rights Act of 1991 [Internet]; 1991. Available from: https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/senate-bill/1745. Accessed October 2, 2024
    Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    ↵
    RaineyR. Vaccine-based religious bias claims skyrocketed at EEOC in 2022 [Internet]; 2023. Available from: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-labor-report/vaccine-based-religious-bias-claims-skyrocketed-at-eeoc-in-2022. Accessed June 6, 2025
    Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    ↵
    CarterRTForsythJM. A guide to the forensic assessment of race-based traumatic stress reactions. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2009 Mar; 37(1):28–40
    Google ScholarAbstract/Full TextPubMed
  48. 48.
    ↵
    Aluru v. Anesthesia Consultants, Prof'l Corp., 176 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (D. Colo. 2016)
    Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    ↵
    Chauhan v. MM Hotel Mgmt. LLC, 18-CV-5963 (DRH)(SIL) (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2019)
    Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    ↵
    Varma v. TCC Wireless, LLC, 478 F. Supp. 3d 724 (N.D. Ill. 2020)
    Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    ↵
    Karupaiyan v. CVS Health Corp., 19 Civ. 8814 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 23, 2021)
    Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    ↵
    Karupaiyan v. CVS Health Corp., 19 Civ. 8814 (KPF) (S.D.N.Y. Sep. 1, 2023)
    Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    ↵
    Patra v. Pennyslvania State System of Higher Education, No. 20-2320 (3d Cir. Jul. 19, 2023)
    Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    ↵
    HeilbrunKKavanaughAGrissoT. The importance of racial identity in forensic mental health assessment. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2021 Dec; 49(4):478–87
    Google ScholarCrossRefFull TextPubMed
  55. 55.
    ↵
    U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Section 12: Religious discrimination [Internet]; 2021. Available from: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/section-12-religious-discrimination#h_34702719247601610750134749. Accessed January 24, 2025
    Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    ↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2013
    Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    ↵
    AggarwalNKLewis-FernándezR. An introduction to the Cultural Formulation Interview. Focus. 2015; 13(4):401–18
    Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    ↵
    GriffithEEHStankovicABaranoskiM. Conceptualizing the forensic psychiatry report as performative narrative. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2010 Mar; 38(1):32–42
    Google ScholarAbstract/Full TextPubMedWeb of Science
  59. 59.
    ↵
    McDonnell Douglas Corp v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973)
    Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    ↵
    GreeneEGoodman-DelahuntyJ. Diagnosis of psychological impairment in employment discrimination claims. Behavioral Sci & L. 1995; 13(4):459–76
    Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    ↵
    WeissMGDeshmukhASarmukaddamSB. Sociocultural framework for psychiatric case formulation. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2024 Jan; 212(1):16–27
    Google ScholarPubMed
  62. 62.
    ↵
    MillerGH. Commentary: The trauma of insidious racism. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2009 Mar; 37(1):41–4
    Google ScholarAbstract/Full TextPubMed
  63. 63.
    ↵
    WilliamsMTMetzgerIWLeinsCDeLappC. Assessing racial trauma within a DSM–5 framework: The UConn Racial/Ethnic Stress & Trauma Survey. Practice Innovations. 2018; 3(4):242–60
    Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    ↵
    RatkalkarMJacksonCHeilbrunK. Race-informed forensic mental health assessment: A principles-based analysis. Int J Forensic Ment Health. 2023; 22(4):314–25
    Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    ↵
    American Psychiatric Association. Supplementary modules to the core Cultural Formulation Interview (C.F.I.) [Internet]; 2013. Available from: https://www.psychiatry.org/getmedia/aca8f5a2-9b1b-456c-a3b7-f7f852edcf7c/APA-DSM5TR-CulturalFormulationInterviewSupplementaryModules.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2024
    Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    ↵
    BourabainDVerhaegheP-P. The conceptualization of everyday racism in research on the mental and physical health of ethnic and racial groups: A systematic review. J Racial Ethn Health Disparities. 2021 Jun; 8(3):648–60
    Google ScholarPubMed
  67. 67.
    ↵
    SternthalMJSlopenNWilliamsDR. Racial disparities in health: How much does stress really matter? Du Bois Rev. 2011 Spring; 8(1):95–113
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  68. 68.
    ↵
    KriegerN. Methods for the scientific study of discrimination and health: An ecosocial approach. Am J Public Health. 2012 May; 102(5):936–44
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  69. 69.
    ↵
    GriffithEEH. Ethics in forensic psychiatry: A cultural response to Stone and Appelbaum. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1998 Jun; 26(2):171–84
    Google ScholarAbstract/Full TextPubMedWeb of Science
  70. 70.
    ↵
    HicksJW. Ethnicity, race, and forensic psychiatry: Are we color-blind? J Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 2004 Mar; 32(1):21–33
    Google ScholarAbstractPubMedWeb of Science
  71. 71.
    ↵
    UllrichHE. Remembrance of incarnations past: A Hindu case study. J Am Acad Psychoanal. 1997; 25(3):493–505
    Google ScholarPubMed
  72. 72.
    ↵
    Tummala-NarraP. The fear of immigrants. Psychoanal Psychol. 2020; 37(1):50–61
    Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    ↵
    AggarwalNKPiehMCDixonL. Clinician descriptions of communication strategies to improve treatment engagement by racial/ethnic minorities in mental health services: A systematic review. Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Feb; 99(2):198–209
    Google ScholarCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.
    ↵
    BergkampJMcIntyreKAHauserM. An uncomfortable tension: Reconciling the principles of forensic psychology and cultural competency. Law & Hum Behav. 2023 Feb; 47(1):233–48
    Google ScholarPubMed
  75. 75.
    ↵
    U.S. Department of Justice Community Relations Service. Engaging and building relationships with Hindu American communities [Internet]; 2025. Available from: https://www.justice.gov/crs/engaging-and-building-relationships-hindu-american-communities#:∼:text=Engaging%20and%20Building%20Relationships%20with%20Hindu%20American%20Communities%20program%20is,%2C%20practices%2C%20and%20civil%20rights%2D. Accessed January 27, 2025
    Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    ↵
    Hindu American Foundation. Justice Department’s new Hindu American community outreach program welcomed by HAF [Internet]; 2025. Available from: https://www.hinduamerican.org/justice-department-hindu-american-outreach-program. Accessed January 27, 2025
    Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    ↵
    Coalition of Hindus of North America. CoHNA partners with U.S. Department of Justice to enhance Hindu representation and safety [Internet]; 2025. Available from: https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/cohna-partners-with-us-department-of-justice-to-enhance-hindu-representation-and-safety-302361009.html. Accessed January 27, 2025
    Google Scholar
Loading
Loading
PDF
Back to top
  • Print
  • Download PDF
  • Article Alerts

    Alerts for this Article

    Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
  • Email Article

    Email This Article

  • Citation Tools

    Citation Tools

    Forensic Assessments of Hindus with Workplace Discrimination Claims
    • Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
    • Jul 2025,
    • JAAPL.250035-25;
    • DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.250035-25

    Citation Manager Formats

  • Request Permissions
  • Share

    Share This Article

    Forensic Assessments of Hindus with Workplace Discrimination Claims
    • Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
    • Jul 2025,
    • JAAPL.250035-25;
    • DOI: 10.29158/JAAPL.250035-25

Jump to section

Keywords

cross-cultural, discrimination, diversity, emotional harm, Hindu, Hinduism