- Former Meta manager filed a federal lawsuit alleging retaliation after refusing to sign an inaccurate immigration letter.
- The plaintiff seeks over one million dollars in damages for lost compensation, equity, and emotional distress.
- The complaint alleges unequal distribution of immigration legal resources based on employees’ national origin.
Meta faces a New Jersey federal lawsuit from former product design manager James Tillinghast, who says the company retaliated after he refused to sign an immigration support letter he believed contained materially inaccurate claims.
Tillinghast filed the complaint on August 17, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The case is listed as Case No. 3:26-cv-10472 and names the company and his former supervisor, Bolan Wang, as defendants.
He seeks more than $1,000,000. The requested damages include $565,000 in lost compensation and $490,000 in forfeited equity and stock options.
The dispute involved an I-140 petition for Shenxun Wang, a company employee seeking an EB-2 National Interest Waiver. Tillinghast says a proposed support letter credited Wang with about $638 million in incremental advertising revenue, complex AI tools and algorithms, and leadership of large cross-functional teams.
Tillinghast says he could not truthfully approve those statements. His complaint describes the figure as materially overstated and says engineering teams, rather than Wang alone, performed the claimed technical work.
The complaint says the conflict began in April or May 2024. Tillinghast attributed his refusal to what he called an “objectively reasonable and good-faith belief that he should not submit materially inaccurate statements to USCIS.”
He alleges the company revoked his access around August 29, 2024. It ended his employment on September 30, 2024, later citing underperformance that he characterizes as pretextual.
Tillinghast also claims the company directed immigration assistance more frequently to some Chinese national employees than to similarly situated workers from other countries. The complaint describes that practice as an “unequal, race-based” allocation of employment-related legal resources.
The disputed letter combined revenue, AI and management claims
The proposed reference letter allegedly came from Fragomen, Del Rey, Bernsen & Loewy, the company’s outside immigration counsel. Tillinghast says it asked him to attest to several descriptions of Wang’s work.
| Allegation in the proposed letter | Tillinghast’s objection |
|---|---|
| Wang directly generated $638 million in advertising revenue | The complaint says the amount was materially overstated |
| Wang developed complex AI tools and algorithms | Tillinghast says engineering teams performed that work |
| Wang led large cross-functional teams | Tillinghast says the letter overstated Wang’s leadership role |
The complaint says the letter attributed work by broader engineering groups to one employee. It also alleges that the document presented Wang’s leadership responsibilities more broadly than Tillinghast believed the facts supported.
The petition concerned a specialized employment-based immigration route. Its central question was whether Wang’s work satisfied the legal standard for a waiver of the ordinary labor-certification process.
The petition sought a waiver of the usual labor certification route
An NIW petition can allow a highly skilled worker to bypass the traditional labor certification process. The work must have “substantial merit and national importance,” according to the standard described in the case materials.
That route places descriptions of a worker’s role and achievements inside an immigration filing. Tillinghast’s allegations focus on whether a manager could properly sign technical and financial assertions prepared for a subordinate’s petition.
The complaint does not establish that immigration authorities found the filing fraudulent or that the petition was approved or denied. It presents Tillinghast’s account of the proposed letter and the employment consequences he says followed his refusal.
The complaint puts workplace retaliation and immigration support in the same case
Tillinghast worked for approximately 4.5 years as Manager, Product Design, Monetization GEN-AI Group. He names his former direct manager, Bolan Wang, alongside the company as a defendant.
The lawsuit raises two related workplace theories. One concerns alleged retaliation for refusing to endorse statements he believed were inaccurate. The other challenges how the company allegedly distributed immigration assistance among employees of different national origins.
The retaliation theory rests on timing and motive. Tillinghast links his refusal in spring 2024 to the later loss of system access and his termination that fall. He says the company’s stated performance rationale concealed the real reason for the dismissal.
The national-origin allegation concerns benefits connected to employment rather than the merits of Wang’s immigration petition. Tillinghast says similarly situated employees from other countries did not receive the same company-coordinated support.
Legal experts cited in the case coverage said the dispute could test whether managers receive whistleblower protection when they decline to endorse corporate-drafted immigration documents they believe are fraudulent.
That question could arise alongside the claims about selective immigration support. The two theories involve different alleged injuries, but both turn on workplace conduct connected to immigration assistance.
The damages claim reaches beyond wages and stock
The compensation request includes economic losses tied to the termination, including lost pay and lost equity. Tillinghast also seeks damages for mental anguish and “pain and suffering.”
Nancy Cuddy Tillinghast, his wife, is listed as a plaintiff with a derivative loss-of-consortium claim. That claim alleges a separate injury arising from the consequences of his termination.
The listed compensation and equity figures together exceed $1 million. The complaint also seeks relief tied to the alleged employment harm.
The filing describes Tillinghast as having held a management role during the preparation of the petition. That position forms part of his account of why he was asked to sign the letter and why he believed the statements required personal scrutiny.
The case remains at the filing stage
As of August 23, 2026, the company had not issued a formal public statement about the lawsuit. The case details identify no published judge assignment or court ruling on the allegations.
The next procedural developments could address the retaliation theory, the alleged unequal immigration assistance and the claims involving the proposed petition. The complaint was filed on August 17, 2026.
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
