By Samuel A. Lopez – USA Herald
March 03, 2025

Here’s a scenario that might hit home: You’re a U.S. citizen, a tech whiz with a killer resume, and you’ve got your sights set on a job at Meta. You nail the interviews, get told you’re a “perfect fit,” and then… crickets. No offer, no explanation—just a door slammed shut. Later, you find out the gig went to an H-1B visa holder. Infuriating, right? That’s the raw deal three American job seekers say they got from Meta, and last week, a federal judge in California said their fight’s worth hearing.

On Tuesday, February 25, 2025, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler handed down a 22-page ruling that’s got Meta Platforms—the company we used to call Facebook—on the ropes. She shot down their bid to dismiss a proposed class action claiming they’ve been playing favorites, allegedly prioritizing H-1B visa holders over U.S. citizens to cut costs. With over two decades in the legal and insurance game, I’ve seen plenty of corporate dust-ups, but this one’s got a spark that could light up Silicon Valley.

Case Flashpoints

·       Judge Says Game On: Beeler’s decision keeps the plaintiffs’ discrimination claims alive, rejecting Meta’s push to toss the suit.

·       The Stat That Stings: H-1B visa holders make up 15% of Meta’s workforce—30 times the 0.5% average for U.S. employers. Chance or choice? You decide.

·       DOJ’s Long Shadow: A 2020 Justice Department action that cost Meta $14 million stays in play, bolstering the plaintiffs’ case.

Meet Purushothaman Rajaram, Ekta Bhatia, and Qun Wang—three U.S. citizens who applied to Meta between May 2020 and March 2022 and walked away empty-handed. Rajaram, a technical consultant, says he went for it twice in 2020—sailed through interviews, earned high praise, and still got the cold shoulder. The second time, he alleges, Meta gave the job to an H-1B visa holder. Bhatia and Wang tell similar tales: solid skills, glowing feedback, yet no hire. Their theory? Meta’s banking on visa holders being cheaper labor.

They’ve got some numbers to back it up. Meta’s workforce is 15% H-1B visa holders, dwarfing the national employer average of under 0.5%. Meta’s counter? That stat’s bunk—it’s the applicant pool that matters, not the broader workforce. It’s a decent jab, but Judge Beeler didn’t flinch. She pointed to the plaintiffs’ personal stories—qualified candidates left hanging—and a 2020 DOJ probe that mirrors their gripes. It’s not a checkmate, but it’s enough to keep this bout going.

Meta’s been down this road before. In 2020, the Department of Justice accused them of freezing out U.S. workers for visa holders, a mess they settled for $14 million without admitting fault. They tried to scrub that chapter from this lawsuit, arguing it’s old hat and unrelated to these plaintiffs’ applications. Judge Beeler disagreed. “The DOJ’s allegations support the plaintiffs’ claims,” she wrote, noting the parallel hiring tricks at play.

Beeler’s ruling gets into the weeds. The plaintiffs say they were top picks, yet Meta’s H-1B hires have spiked since 2013. “These allegations nudge out the idea that it’s just about Meta’s techy job needs,” she reasoned. The stats alone don’t seal the deal, but as “one probative piece” alongside personal accounts and that DOJ echo, they paint a picture.

This case has bounced around plenty. Rajaram launched it in May 2022, only to see it KO’d later that year when Beeler ruled U.S. citizens don’t get protection under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rough blow. But the Ninth Circuit flipped that call in June 2024, saying that Reconstruction-era law covers citizenship bias too—it’s all about “all persons” getting the same shot as white citizens to lock down contracts. That opened the door for a second amended complaint with Bhatia and Wang, and now Meta’s back in the ring.

Plaintiffs’ attorney Daniel Low of Kotchen & Low LLP was all fire after the ruling. “I’m pleased that the court recognized that the claims should go forward,” he said. “I hope that the lawsuit will help remedy the favoritism towards visa workers that is common in the tech industry.” It’s a rallying cry I’ve heard echo through my years covering these battles—American workers tired of warming the bench.

Meta’s keeping quiet. I reached out for their take, but as of now, they’re not talking. Their legal team at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP swung hard to ditch this suit, arguing the plaintiffs can’t prove intent or that they’d have landed the jobs otherwise. It’s a slick move—sidestep the hit by saying there’s no proof of a bruise. But Beeler’s order keeps the fight alive.

Step back, and this isn’t just about three job hunters. It’s a flare in a simmering war over H-1B visas in Big Tech. Meant to snag specialized talent, critics say it’s a cheap-labor cheat code. Meta’s 15% stat—leagues above the norm—only fans the flames.

This ruling’s no final bell. Meta’s got moves left—discovery, more motions, maybe a trial. The plaintiffs want class action status, potentially pulling in every U.S. citizen who’s applied to Meta and gotten the brush-off. Prove a “pattern and practice” of bias, and this could sting Meta’s bottom line big-time.

That DOJ ghost isn’t fading either. The $14 million settlement might’ve been a whisper in 2020, but it’s a shout now. Plaintiffs call it evidence of a long game; Meta says it’s a sideshow. The court’ll sort it, and I’ll be ringside.

For a deeper dive into the law without the jargon, join my Patreon community, Legal Insights and Strategies by Samuel Lopez, for exclusive analyses, templates, and insider tips.