wordpress blog stats
Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

, , ,

Fired Netflix employee alleges tax avoidance “façade” in India and more

The former employee alleged that she was discouraged from making complaints about a tax memo, and accused her immediate supervisor of sexist remarks. 

Nandini Mehta, an Indian lawyer who worked for Netflix between April 2018 and April 2020, alleged on Tuesday that the company was leveraging corporate structures to avoid tax liabilities in India. In a wrongful termination lawsuit against the company filed at the Superior Court of California, Mehta alleged that she “was advised by members of Netflix’s United States tax team that Netflix did not want to expose itself to tax liability in India,” and that a memo circulated in the company “created a façade that required its employees (mostly Indian) working in India to create the superficial and illusory appearance that Netflix was not “permanently established” in India.”

Mehta said that employees in India would have to package decisions as recommendations to US-based employees, who would officially clear decisions. MediaNama has viewed a copy of the complaint, first reported by Law360.

Netflix denied the allegations in the suit, and said that the corporate structures it had in India were standard among multinationals here:

Ms. Mehta was fired from Netflix for repeatedly using her corporate credit card for tens of thousands of dollars in personal expenses, including nearly $9,000 spent at Cartier. These unauthorized charges occurred over a significant period of time. Mehta was instructed not to use her corporate card for personal expenses and given ample opportunity to correct her behavior. She did not and her employment was terminated as a result.

The accusations Mehta has made about our corporate structure in India are categorically untrue. The structure we established in India is typical for multinational companies and reflects our business needs and the relevant governmental rules.

Advertisement. Scroll to continue reading.

We are confident her claims will be found to be totally lacking in merit. — Netflix spokesperson

Allegations of xenophobia and toxic work culture

Mehta in her complaint painted a picture of a company where her gender and nationality were allegedly frequently used to discriminate against her. She alleged, among other things, that:

  • Her immediate supervisor made multiple derogatory comments about Indian women, Mehta, and Indian-American employees at Netflix, both in the US and in India, and referred to India as a “shithole”. She alleged that this supervisor felt threatened by her work record and that he disparaged her for overstepping her bounds, calling her “greedy” and offensive epithets.
  • The supervisor would refer to an India-based policy executive in sexist and debasing terms for flagging potential grievance issues with content that was going to release in India. He allegedly accused top content executives in India and the US of “blowing up” the company’s India slate.
  • He warned Mehta that complaints about the tax memo among other things were endangering her job and signalled to colleagues that he was recruiting a replacement; he also allegedly blocked at least one Indian woman’s appointment suggested by Mehta.
  • The company had an internal travel memo that warned American executives to prepare for the following when in India: bouts of diarrhea, taking “your own needles” when going to a hospital, training home staff in “basic personal hygiene”, and “Don’t make jokes about cows.”
  • She was being paid less than male colleagues in her team who had less relevant experience in the field than she did.
  • She was discouraged from making HR complaints on pay gaps and was ultimately given a raise after which her salary was still less than that of male colleagues.
  • Mehta was compelled to move to India, and she was demoted in 2019, in an email that also went out to her subordinates. She alleges that her access to her salary was limited, and due to Netflix’s hesitancy to add her to the US payroll, two-thirds of her annual income was being taxed in both India and the US.

Also read

Written By

I cover the digital content ecosystem and telecom for MediaNama.

MediaNama’s mission is to help build a digital ecosystem which is open, fair, global and competitive.



Looking at the definition of health data, it is difficult to verify whether health IDs are covered by the Bill.


The accession to the Convention brings many advantages, but it could complicate the Brazilian stance at the BRICS and UN levels.


In light of the state's emerging digital healthcare apparatus, how does Clause 12 alter the consent and purpose limitation model?


The collective implication of leaving out ‘proportionality’ from Clause 12 is to provide very wide discretionary powers to the state.


The latest draft is also problematic for companies or service providers that have nothing to with children's data.

You May Also Like


Google has released a Google Travel Trends Report which states that branded budget hotel search queries grew 179% year over year (YOY) in India, in...


135 job openings in over 60 companies are listed at our free Digital and Mobile Job Board: If you’re looking for a job, or...


Rajesh Kumar* doesn’t have many enemies in life. But, Uber, for which he drives a cab everyday, is starting to look like one, he...


By Aroon Deep and Aditya Chunduru You’re reading it here first: Twitter has complied with government requests to censor 52 tweets that mostly criticised...

MediaNama is the premier source of information and analysis on Technology Policy in India. More about MediaNama, and contact information, here.

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ

Subscribe to our daily newsletter
Your email address:*
Please enter all required fields Click to hide
Correct invalid entries Click to hide

© 2008-2021 Mixed Bag Media Pvt. Ltd. Developed By PixelVJ