New England Biz Law Update
A former manager has sued Meta, alleging he was terminated after refusing to sign an immigration reference letter that he believed contained materially inaccurate statements about another employee’s work.
The lawsuit, filed in federal court in New Jersey, raises an unusual employment issue involving workplace retaliation and an employee’s refusal to endorse representations intended for submission to U.S. immigration authorities.
Manager terminated
According to the complaint, the manager was asked to sign a reference letter supporting an I-140 EB-2 National Interest Waiver petition for a Meta product designer.
The proposed letter allegedly attributed $638 million in incremental advertising revenue to the employee, described the employee as having created algorithms or artificial intelligence tools and made representations about the national importance of the employee’s work.
The manager alleged that he did not have a sufficient factual or professional basis to support some of the statements. Rather than sign the letter as drafted, he revised it to include only statements he believed he could truthfully endorse. Another manager ultimately signed a reference letter.
A few months later, Meta terminated the plaintiff’s employment. The lawsuit alleges that his refusal to sign the original letter contributed to that decision and that Meta’s later explanation that he had underperformed was pretextual.
Lawsuit alleges retaliation and discrimination
The former manager is asserting retaliation claims under federal and New Jersey law, among other claims.
He also alleges that Meta selectively provided company-coordinated immigration support to certain Chinese-national employees and that access to that employment-related benefit was not governed by neutral criteria unrelated to national origin, ancestry, race or ethnicity.
The allegations have not been proven in court.
For employers, the case presents a less common form of potential retaliation risk.
Managers and other employees may be asked to provide information for immigration petitions, regulatory filings or other official submissions.
Employers should have procedures for addressing concerns when an employee believes information he or she is being asked to certify or endorse is inaccurate, rather than allowing that disagreement to become intertwined with subsequent employment decisions.
