A former Meta manager has sued the company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging he was fired after refusing to sign an immigration reference letter he says contained materially false statements about his role and contributions.
The complaint, filed as case 3:26cv10472, says the letter was meant to support a colleague’s EB-2 National Interest Waiver petition and that Meta’s outside counsel attributed $638 million in revenue to the employee and credited them with creating AI tools and holding “national importance,” claims the plaintiff says he had no factual or professional basis to attest to. He alleges his termination followed the refusal and was not backed by any documented performance issue, and separately alleges Meta’s immigration-support process was applied selectively to Chinese-national employees in violation of anti-discrimination law. Claims include retaliation under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination.
The case surfaces a compliance exposure specific to employer-sponsored immigration programs: managers and HR staff are frequently asked to attest to petition details they did not independently verify, and this suit tests whether refusing to do so is protected activity when the employee believes the attestation is false. That question sits alongside other rulings this year on how much latitude employers get around documentation and process; see EEOC Sues University Over DEI Training Segregation and EEOC: Kroger Ignored Cashier’s Cancer Accommodation for two other recent tests of employer process obligations.
HR and legal teams that route employer-sponsored immigration attestations through line managers should confirm those managers have a documented right to decline or escalate a request they believe is factually inaccurate, rather than an informal expectation to sign as directed.
Source: U.S. District Court complaint
