FOLLOW US

A California federal judge has dealt a blow to Meta’s legal defense, refusing to dismiss a proposed class action that accuses the tech giant of systematically favoring H-1B visa holders over U.S. citizens in hiring. The decision, issued Tuesday, marks a significant step forward for the plaintiffs, who claim they were unfairly sidelined despite being qualified for positions.

A Battle Over Hiring Practices and Alleged Bias

In a 22-page ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler denied Meta’s motion to toss out the lawsuit, which was filed by three U.S. citizens—Purushothaman Rajaram, Ekta Bhatia, and Qun Wang. They allege Meta discriminates against American workers in favor of hiring H-1B visa holders, a practice they argue allows the company to secure cheaper labor.

The judge also rejected Meta’s attempt to strike portions of the complaint referencing a 2020 U.S. Department of Justice investigation, which accused the company of similar hiring bias. That case ended in a $14 million settlement, though Meta admitted no wrongdoing.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a striking statistic: while H-1B visa holders make up only 0.5% of the U.S. workforce, they constitute 15% of Meta’s employees. The plaintiffs argue this disparity reflects a deliberate pattern of discrimination against American job seekers.

Meta’s Defense: Flawed Statistics and No Proof of Bias

Meta, formerly known as Facebook, sought to dismiss the case by arguing that the plaintiffs failed to present a valid claim. The company contended that statistical disparities alone do not prove discrimination and that the lawsuit improperly compares the percentage of H-1B workers at Meta with the overall U.S. workforce rather than the actual applicant pool.

The social media giant also pushed back on the inclusion of the DOJ’s past investigation, arguing that the claims from that case involved different hiring practices that predated the plaintiffs’ job applications.

However, Judge Beeler saw things differently. While acknowledging that statistics alone are not enough to establish a claim, she ruled that the plaintiffs’ personal experiences—such as being told they were “perfect” for roles but then rejected—strengthen their allegations.

“These allegations support the plaintiffs' overall complaint that they were not hired because Meta favors H-1B visa holders,” the judge wrote.

A Lawsuit Years in the Making

The case dates back to May 2022, when Rajaram, a technical consultant, first sued Meta for allegedly violating federal civil rights laws by discriminating against him based on his citizenship status. He claimed he had twice applied for positions at the company in 2020, receiving positive interview feedback, only to be passed over in favor of an H-1B visa holder.

Initially, Meta succeeded in having the case dismissed when Judge Beeler ruled in November 2022 that U.S. citizens are not a protected class under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. However, in June 2024, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, finding that the Reconstruction-era law bars employers from discriminating against U.S. citizens in hiring.

While race discrimination and citizenship bias are distinct, the Ninth Circuit noted that Section 1981 guarantees “all persons” the same right to make and enforce contracts as white citizens. That ruling resurrected Rajaram’s case and allowed Bhatia and Wang to join as additional plaintiffs.

The trio argues that Meta’s hiring process follows a "pattern and practice" of favoring H-1B visa holders, effectively shutting out qualified American applicants.