Lathika Pai, a prominent voice in India’s startup ecosystem and former Microsoft executive, has filed a civil suit against Microsoft India and Microsoft Corporation, seeking ₹35.3 crore in damages. The suit alleges that Pai was effectively forced to resign from her position as the Country Head for Venture Capital and Private Equity Partnerships in July 2024 due to sustained retaliation, intimidation, and a hostile work environment. Filed initially in the Delhi High Court and now transferred to a civil court in Bengaluru, the lawsuit marks a significant development involving one of the most recognisable names in corporate India.
According to court documents accessed by Inc42, Pai’s resignation followed an extended period of professional marginalisation after Microsoft launched a second investigation into her leadership of the “Highway to a 100 Unicorns” programme. This startup-focused initiative, rolled out in 2019, aimed to empower early-stage ventures across smaller Indian cities through collaboration with state governments. An initial internal probe in late 2019, triggered by anonymous allegations of vendor favouritism and financial misconduct, had exonerated Pai. She was even promoted in 2021 based on her contributions. However, a second inquiry initiated in March 2024 reopened the same issues without new public evidence.
Second Investigation Sparks Accusations of Bias and Retaliation
Unlike the first investigation, which was handled internally, the second was led by the external law firm Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP. Pai has argued that she was denied basic procedural fairness throughout the process. She was not given access to the original complaints or full transcripts of her previous interviews. Most notably, her objection to the refusal to record an April 2024 interview, allegedly in violation of Microsoft’s internal investigation policy, was dismissed.
Pai further alleges that after raising questions about the legality and transparency of the second investigation, she was systematically isolated within the organisation. Her refusal to hand over her personal phone, which she maintains was beyond the scope of any legitimate inquiry, was treated as non-cooperation. This, she claims, was used to sideline her from decision-making forums, label her as a “troublemaker,” and erase her contributions from internal narratives.
Cyberbullying Complaint and Cultural Bias Allegations Add to Claims
The lawsuit also references an earlier incident from 2020, when Pai reportedly received anonymous, abusive emails. While Microsoft allegedly promised a forensic investigation, Pai claims no substantive action was taken to trace the source. In addition to issues of workplace hostility, Pai’s suit suggests that Microsoft’s leadership exhibited inherent biases against dealings involving Indian state governments, presuming misconduct where there was none. This perceived cultural prejudice, she argues, added undue scrutiny to her initiatives despite their approval and internal clearance.
Pai’s decision to resign in July 2024, she asserts, was not voluntary but the result of sustained mental, emotional, and reputational harm. She claims that her departure followed nearly eight months of stress and harassment, leaving her with no reasonable choice but to protect her health and professional dignity.
Next Hearing in Bengaluru as Corporate Accountability Comes Under Scrutiny
The Delhi High Court heard preliminary arguments on May 7, during which Microsoft’s legal counsel contended that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction. The case has since been moved to Bengaluru, where both parties are scheduled to appear on June 9. Microsoft India has not commented publicly on the matter so far.
The case has sparked broader conversations around corporate accountability, internal investigations, and the treatment of senior women executives in global technology firms. With her background as a serial entrepreneur and advocate for women-led ventures, Pai’s allegations have drawn considerable attention within India’s startup and tech communities. Whether the courts affirm her claims or not, the case is poised to become a pivotal moment in discussions about fairness and transparency in high-stakes corporate environments.
