Bias Against Citizens: Meta Must Face Lawsuit Brought By Rajaram Says Judge

India-West News Desk

SAN FRANCISCO, CA – Information technology worker Purushothaman Rajaram, along with software engineer Ekta Bhatia and data scientist Qun Wang, is leading a lawsuit against Meta Platforms, accusing the company of systematically favoring foreign workers over U.S. citizens to reduce labor costs, Reuters reported.

On February 25, U.S. Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler ruled that the three U.S. citizens could proceed with their proposed class-action lawsuit. The plaintiffs, all highly qualified professionals, claim they applied for multiple positions at Meta between 2020 and 2024 but were repeatedly rejected due to the company’s alleged preference for visa holders.

The case, Rajaram et al v Meta Platforms Inc, is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, No. 22-02920.

Beeler’s decision cited statistics showing that 15% of Meta’s U.S. workforce consists of H-1B visa holders—far above the national average of 0.5%—as evidence supporting claims that the company favors foreign workers, Reuters noted.

Meta, headquartered in Menlo Park, California, denied the allegations, calling them baseless. The company stated it would “vigorously defend” itself, arguing there was no proof of intentional discrimination or that the plaintiffs would have been hired if they were not U.S. citizens.

The judge also referenced Meta’s October 2021 settlement with the federal government, in which the company agreed to pay up to $14.25 million to resolve claims that it routinely reserved jobs for temporary visa holders while excluding American applicants. “These allegations support the plaintiffs’ overall complaint that they were not hired because Meta favors H-1B visa holders,” Beeler wrote.

The lawsuit stems from a December 2020 government case against Meta, filed just weeks before former President Donald Trump left office. Beeler had initially dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit, in which Rajaram was the sole plaintiff, in November 2022.

However, a divided federal appeals court revived the case in June 2023, citing Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a Civil War-era law that bars discrimination based on “alienage” in contracts. Conservative groups have frequently invoked this statute in their opposition to workplace diversity initiatives, Reuters reported.