He says younger colleagues sat idle longer and kept their jobs — he was cut
A 61-year-old Black DevOps engineer claims Tata Consultancy Services fired him under an unwritten two-week bench rule weeks after kidney surgery.
That is the heart of a lawsuit filed on May 19, 2026 by Harvey Smith against Tata Consultancy Services Limited in the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina. Smith, who worked remotely from Concord, NC, alleges the company pushed him out for reasons that had less to do with workforce management and more to do with his race, age, and recent medical leave (Smith v. Tata Consultancy Services Limited, No. 1:26-cv-00458).
According to the filing, Smith was hired as a DevOps Engineer on or about May 7, 2020, and spent years rotating through client accounts including T-Mobile, Intel, Amazon Web Services, General Electric, and Boeing. He says he consistently met expectations, picked up updated AWS and Azure certifications along the way, and earned positive feedback and bonus increases.
The trouble, he says, started after his most recent assignment wrapped up.
In mid-August 2024, Smith went to the emergency room and was diagnosed with kidney stones, a condition the filing describes as Renal Calculi, requiring surgery and follow-up care. He took medical leave from August 27 through approximately September 23, 2024. During that stretch, Smith says three of the company's employees repeatedly contacted him, asking when he would return, what his diagnosis was, and how long it would keep him out of work. The questions, he claims, were attributed to HR and management.
Smith says the pressure pushed him back to work despite having about 10 days of leave remaining. He completed his Boeing assignment on September 24, 2024, then waited for a new project. A manager assured him on October 18 that another contract was "in the pipeline." Five days later, on October 23, 2024, he was let go.
The reason given, according to the filing, was a policy that employees on the "bench" — the firm's term for staff between client engagements — for more than two weeks would be terminated. Smith says no such written policy existed and that he had never been told about one.
Here is where the case lands squarely in HR territory. Smith alleges that younger White and Indian colleagues sat on the bench for the same amount of time or longer without losing their jobs, and that one White colleague was promoted to Senior Product Engineer. Bench placements, the filing says, "appeared to be discretionary," with opportunities prioritized toward White or Indian employees.
Smith was 59 at the time of his termination, three weeks shy of his 60th birthday. He claims his duties were reassigned to younger, non-Black employees.
The lawsuit pulls together claims under Title VII, Section 1981, the ADEA, the ADA, and North Carolina's wrongful discharge doctrine. Smith is seeking reinstatement, back pay, benefits, compensatory and punitive damages, and a jury trial.
The allegations have not been tested in court. TCS has not yet filed a response, and no judge has ruled on the claims.
