A split Ninth Circuit panel on Thursday reinstated a proposed class action alleging Facebook parent company Meta unlawfully favors visa holders when hiring, ruling that a Reconstruction-era civil rights law bars employers from discriminating against U.S. citizens.

Ninth Circuit Revives Meta Hiring Bias Suit : Case Background

In a published 2-1 decision, the panel reversed the dismissal of naturalized citizen Purushothaman Rajaram's suit alleging Meta Platforms Inc. violated Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Rajaram claimed in his May 2022 complaint that he was rejected for several jobs at Meta, which operates Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, despite being well-qualified for the positions he sought.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler tossed the suit in November 2022, ruling U.S. citizens weren't a protected class under federal law. However, the panel majority stated Thursday that this was a faulty interpretation of Section 1981.

Ninth Circuit's Rationale

"An employer that discriminates against United States citizens gives one class of people — noncitizens, or perhaps some subset of noncitizens — a greater right to make contracts than 'white citizens,'" U.S. Circuit Judge Eric D. Miller wrote for the majority. "If some noncitizens have a greater right to make contracts than 'white citizens,' then it is not true that '(a)ll persons' have the 'same right' to make contracts as 'white citizens.'"

The panel noted that its decision contradicts the Fifth Circuit's 1986 decision in Chaiffetz v. Robertson Research Holding Ltd., which held that just because Section 1981 protects white people from race discrimination doesn't mean it prohibits citizenship discrimination.

But the Ninth Circuit majority said that while race discrimination is indeed different from citizenship bias, "it is not different in any way that is relevant to the text of Section 1981."

Ninth Circuit Revives Meta Hiring Bias Suit : Legal Precedents

"Nowhere does the statute 'use the term "alien" to describe those to whom it extends protection,'" Judge Miller wrote, quoting an Arizona federal court's 2010 decision in Jimenez v. Servicios Agricolas Mex Inc.

Instead, according to the opinion, Section 1981 guarantees that "all persons" will have the same right as white citizens to make and enforce contracts.

"Rajaram alleges that Meta has violated that guarantee by giving noncitizens a greater right than citizens to contract for employment," Judge Miller wrote. "He has therefore stated a claim under Section 1981."

Legal Representation

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to requests for comment Thursday. U.S. Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Eric D. Miller, and Lawrence VanDyke sat on the panel for the Ninth Circuit.

Rajaram is represented by Daniel Low and Daniel Kotchen of Kotchen & Low LLP. Meta is represented by Michele L. Maryott, Daniel R. Adler, Kelley Pettus, Lauren R. Goldman, Gabrielle Levin, and Emily Black of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Implications

The decision to revive the Meta hiring bias suit underscores the Ninth Circuit's interpretation of Section 1981, which could have broader implications for employment practices and discrimination law. As the case proceeds, it will likely attract significant attention from both legal scholars and the tech industry.