In Sandhu v. Lockheed Missiles & Space Co. (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 846, the plaintiff alleged in his administrative complaint that he was treated differently from other, "'non-Asian'" employees, and checked only "race" as the cause of discrimination. In his superior court complaint, the plaintiff alleged racial discrimination and described himself as an "'East Indian.'" (Ibid.) However, the trial court sustained a demurrer to the evidence that a person from India is "'by definition . . . a Caucasian'" and thus cannot recover for race discrimination. (Id. at p. 850.) In his amended complaint, the plaintiff alleged he was "'an East Indian male whose national origin is Punjab, India . . . .'" and alleged discrimination based on this national origin. (Ibid.) The court then granted a demurrer because the plaintiff identified racial discrimination and not national origin discrimination in his administrative complaint. (Ibid.) The Sandhu court reversed. After a lengthy discussion on the analytical difficulties in differentiating between race and national origin, the court concluded: "Discriminators . . . may indeed be 'poor anthropologists' citation; any scientific definition of race has little to do with the realities of racial discrimination. Sandhu alleged both in his administrative charge and in his complaints that he was treated differently from other, 'non-Asian' Lockheed employees. Like other plaintiffs whose ancestry, descent and national origin are all intimately related, citations Sandhu may not and need not be aware of the precise basis of Lockheed's disparate treatment of him: whether it was his accent, his skin color, his ancestry or his nationality. . . . Sandhu's allegation that he was subject to a discriminatory animus based on his membership in a group which is perceived as distinct when measured against other Lockheed employees, and which is not based on his birthplace alone, is sufficient to make out a cognizable claim for racial discrimination under FEHA." (Sandhu, supra, 26 Cal.App.4th at p. 857.)