Meta Favoring H-1B Workers: Court Reopens Bias Case

Key Takeaways:

The Ninth Circuit ruled that Section 1981 prohibits employment discrimination against U.S. citizens based on citizenship.
The ruling potentially sparks legal challenges against companies, especially those preferring H-1B visa holders over U.S. citizens.
This decision may lead the U.S. Supreme Court to resolve conflicting interpretations around employment discrimination and H-1B visa practices.

What is the Case Against Meta and What Did the Court Say?

A recent ruling by the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals could change how American companies hire foreign workers. The court overturned the dismissal of a proposed class action against Meta Platforms, Facebook’s parent company. The case alleges that Meta prefers hiring H-1B visa holders over U.S. citizens.

Meta Favoring H-1B Workers: Court Reopens Bias Case

Purushothaman Rajaram, an Indian-origin U.S. citizen, filed the class action. He claims Meta refused to hire him in favor of “noncitizens holding H1B visas to whom it can pay lower wages.” Initially, a California federal judge dismissed Rajaram’s claim, stating that Section 1981 “does not bar discrimination based on U.S. citizenship.” However, the Ninth Circuit disagreed. The court ruled in a 2-1 vote that 42 U.S.C. Section 1981 does indeed prohibit employment discrimination against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship.

Rajaram claimed that from 2020 to 2022, Meta rejected his job applications. He argues that “Meta violated section 1981 by discriminating against United States citizens in hiring.” The Ninth Circuit found that section 1981, which guarantees equal rights in contracting for “all persons” within the U.S., prohibits employers from favoring non-citizens over citizens.

Judge Miller observed, “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.’ 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.’ That is precisely what the literal text of the statute prohibits.”

Does Section 1981 Prohibit Hiring Based on Citizenship?

In this landmark court observation, Judge Miller emphasized that section 1981 guarantees equal contractual rights for both citizens and noncitizens in the United States. He argued that employers violating this statute discriminate against U.S. citizens by giving non-citizens a greater right to enter into contracts.

However, not everyone on the panel agreed. Judge Vandyke dissented, arguing that Section 1981 is not as straightforward as the majority opinion suggests. He posited that the phrase “same rights … as enjoyed by white citizens” might imply a “leveling-up” requirement, granting everyone rights equal to those of white citizens. Under this interpretation, citizens, who already enjoy these rights, might not need further protection under this statute. Alternatively, if strict equalization is the statute’s aim, mentioning “white citizens” would be redundant.

Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of Rajaram, concluding that he has sufficiently alleged discrimination under section 1981 based on Meta’s hiring practices.

What Could This Ruling Mean for H-1B Visas and Employment Litigation?

This ruling could spark more legal battles regarding foreign worker hiring practices and potentially lead to a circuit court split. Experts point out that it contradicts a 1986 ruling by the Fifth Circuit, which held that Section 1981 does not prohibit discrimination against U.S. citizens. If Meta appeals, the U.S. Supreme Court might have to step in to resolve these conflicting interpretations.

The decision is seen as a potential setback for companies employing H-1B visa holders. It could lead to more lawsuits by U.S.-born workers against companies that favor temporary visa holders, challenging the employment practices of many tech giants and other businesses that rely heavily on foreign talent. According to VisaVerge.com, this ruling may “challenge the employment practices of many tech giants and other companies that rely heavily on H-1B visa holders.”

For further authoritative information on H-1B visas, you can visit the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) page on H-1B Specialty Occupations.

Conclusions and Future Implications

This unprecedented ruling by the Ninth Circuit opens the door to potential shifts in how companies approach their hiring practices, especially those relying heavily on H-1B visas. Employers may need to reassess their hiring protocols to ensure they are not inadvertently discriminating against U.S. citizens.

As legal interpretations evolve, companies need to stay informed about potential legal risks and ensure compliance with Section 1981 and other relevant statutes. If you are an employer or a job seeker affected by this ruling, it may be wise to consult legal experts to understand its implications fully.

Navigating the complexities of employment law can be challenging. Staying updated with reliable sources like VisaVerge.com can offer valuable insights and guidance through these evolving legal landscapes.

This action against Meta and its focus on Section 1981 could set new legal precedents, influencing how American companies manage their workforce. It remains crucial for both employers and employees to stay informed and prepared for what lies ahead.

Learn Today:

Glossary of Immigration Terms:
1. H-1B Visa: A non-immigrant visa that allows U.S. companies to employ foreign workers in specialty occupations that require theoretical or technical expertise, commonly used in the tech industry.
2. Section 1981: A U.S. federal statute that guarantees all individuals within the United States the “same right … to make and enforce contracts … as is enjoyed by white citizens,” prohibiting racial discrimination and, as interpreted in this case, discrimination based on citizenship in employment.
3. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: A federal court with appellate jurisdiction over districts within its circuit, including several Western states. Its decisions are influential and can set legal precedents in those states.
4. Class Action: A lawsuit filed by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of a larger group who are affected by the same issue. In this case, it refers to the lawsuit filed against Meta for alleged discrimination in hiring practices.
5. Employment Discrimination: Unfair treatment of employees or job applicants based on certain characteristics such as race, gender, or nationality. The case against Meta revolves around accusations of discrimination against U.S. citizens in favor of H-1B visa holders.

This Article In A Nutshell:

The Ninth Circuit Court revived a class action accusing Meta of favoring H-1B visa holders over U.S. citizens. Initially dismissed, the court ruled employment discrimination based on citizenship is illegal under Section 1981. This decision could impact hiring practices, affecting legal guidelines for companies employing foreign workers.
— By VisaVerge.com

Disclaimer: The information provided in this article is for informational purposes only. If you reference or use any content from this article, please attribute it to VisaVerge.com by including a link to the original source. We appreciate your adherence to our content usage policies and your commitment to giving proper credit.