Harker v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

James Harker sued his former employer, Something Ideal, LLC, and Meta Platforms, Inc., Association of Independent Commercial Producers, Inc., and BBDO Worldwide, Inc. He asserted six claims related to a race-based hiring program called “Double the Line.” The defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), which concerns the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction, and Rule 12(b)(6), which concerns whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim.

Harker had more than twenty-seven years of experience as an electrician on commercial, film, and television productions. Something Ideal offered him a best-boy electrician position on a December 2022 production made for Meta and BBDO. He alleged that the production also included a “Double the Line” gaffer who, in his view, had less experience but was paid more. The program involved adding a Black, Indigenous, or other person of color to a production role alongside the person selected for the original role.

Harker alleged that he complained about the program’s treatment of the additional hires and was not rehired afterward. The opinion also states that he did not formally apply or otherwise express interest in any role on later projects by the defendants.

Standing

The court held that Harker lacked Article III standing, meaning he had not shown the personal injury required for a federal court to hear his claims. In a case challenging an allegedly discriminatory selection policy, the court explained, a plaintiff generally must show that he applied for the position. Even when applying would have been futile, a Title VII plaintiff must show that he was able and ready to apply.

Harker acknowledged that he had not applied for a gaffer position on the production or at another relevant time. The court rejected his argument that there was no formal application process and that he did not know about the program. He had not alleged that he expressed interest in working as a gaffer, either before the production or after learning about the program. The court viewed this as an abstract grievance rather than a concrete desire to obtain the position.

The court also rejected Harker’s argument that applying would have been futile because the defendants selected candidates based on race. It found that he had not shown that he was ready and able to apply to the program. The court noted that the program was described as an apprenticeship intended for qualified candidates who had not previously had access to commercial production, while Harker alleged that he had extensive industry experience. His allegations about the experience of people selected for other roles did not establish his qualifications or interest in the gaffer role.

Finally, the court rejected Harker’s reliance on an exception for certain unposted job openings. The court explained that this exception concerns whether a plaintiff has adequately stated a failure-to-promote claim; it does not eliminate the separate requirement to establish standing. Harker also did not allege that he told the employer he wanted to be considered for gaffer work.

Leave to Amend and Disposition

The court denied further leave to amend the complaint. Harker had already amended once, and after two rounds of dismissal-motion briefing focused substantially on standing, he had not offered additional facts suggesting that he could establish standing through another amendment.

Judge Swain granted the motions to the extent they sought dismissal of the amended complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). The court directed the Clerk of Court to enter judgment dismissing the amended complaint in its entirety and to close the case. The order does not separately state a disposition under Rule 12(b)(6).