San Francisco, CA, Feb. 25, 2025 – A federal district court denied a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ claims that Meta Platforms (formerly known as Facebook) engaged in a pattern-or-practice of citizenship discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
Plaintiffs relied on three types of evidence to demonstrate the plausibility of their claims. First, Plaintiffs offered statistical evidence that Meta employs a grossly disproportionate percentage of H-1B visa workers (over 15%) compared to those in the overall U.S. workforce (less than 0.5%). Second, Plaintiffs relied on a Department of Justice finding in an earlier investigation that there was “reasonable cause to believe that Facebook engaged in a pattern or practice” of citizenship discrimination with respect to PERM hiring. Third, Plaintiffs relied on anecdotal evidence of the experiences of the three named plaintiffs, Purushothaman Rajaram, Ekta Bhatia, and Qun Wang, who alleged that they were well qualified and received positive feedback, but were denied employment.
Meta also sought to strike allegations from the complaint related to the DOJ investigation, but the court held that they failed to satisfy the standard for a motion to strike.
Plaintiff Rajaram initially filed the lawsuit in 2022. The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding that U.S. citizens did not have a viable cause of action under Section 1981 to assert citizenship discrimination claims. The Ninth Circuit reversed in 2024, reinstating the case.
The case is Rajaram et al. v. Meta Platforms Inc., No. 3:22-cv-02920 (N.D. Cal.).
Related coverage: Reuters; Bloomberg; Law360 (subscription).
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
