Rajaram v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

Background

Purushothaman Rajaram brought a proposed class action against Meta Platforms, Inc., which the opinion refers to as Facebook for events occurring before its name change. Rajaram alleged that Meta preferred to hire H-1B visa holders for certain positions because it could pay them less than U.S. citizens. He alleged that Meta did not hire him for several positions despite his qualifications and, in one instance, hired an H-1B visa holder instead.

Rajaram claimed that this conduct violated 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Section 1981 generally protects people’s equal right to make and enforce contracts, including employment contracts. The opinion explains that courts have interpreted the statute to prohibit racial discrimination and discrimination based on alienage, meaning non-U.S.-citizenship status.

Motion to Dismiss

Meta moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not state a legally sufficient claim. Meta argued that U.S. citizens are not a protected class under Section 1981, and that Rajaram had not plausibly alleged intentional discrimination or that he would have been hired but for the alleged discrimination. Meta also moved under Rule 12(f) to strike allegations concerning a separate administrative proceeding brought by the U.S. Department of Justice.

Court’s Analysis

The court focused on whether a U.S. citizen may bring a Section 1981 claim alleging discrimination based on U.S. citizenship. The court noted that no Ninth Circuit case directly addressed that question. It reviewed decisions from other courts, including a Fifth Circuit decision and several district-court decisions, holding that discrimination against U.S. citizens is not discrimination based on alienage under Section 1981. The court found those authorities more persuasive than decisions reaching the opposite result.

The court reasoned that Section 1981’s protection against alienage discrimination concerns a person’s status as a non-U.S. citizen. It concluded that the statute does not extend that protection to claims alleging discrimination against U.S. citizens based on their citizenship. Because the court found that Rajaram’s legal theory was not cognizable under Section 1981, it did not address Meta’s alternative arguments concerning intentional discrimination or but-for causation. The opinion also does not separately decide the motion to strike.

Disposition

The court granted Meta’s motion to dismiss, dismissed the complaint with prejudice, and stated that the order resolved ECF No. 25. Judge Laurel Beeler signed the order as a United States Magistrate Judge.