Manager says Meta fired him for refusing to sign immigration letter

He says he raised both concerns at a recurring team leads meeting attended by his direct manager and others. According to the complaint, his direct manager responded with words to the effect of: “Don’t worry about this, we’ll take care of it.” The national-interest portion of the letter was then routed to that manager, who the filing says supplied or signed the substitute letter. The complaint alleges the substitute letter included or relied upon representations he had refused to endorse, including representations concerning the employee’s revenue impact, algorithmic work and leadership responsibilities. The manager is named individually on an aiding-and-abetting count under state law. 

On the termination, the filing says Meta revoked his access to its internal systems on or about August 29, 2024, without prior notice, and formally ended his employment effective September 30, 2024. The complaint alleges the termination letter did not state that he was terminated for underperformance, and that the contemporaneous termination materials identified no performance-improvement plan, written warning, documented performance deficiency or individualized performance rationale. Meta later advanced an oral underperformance explanation, the filing says. He contends that explanation was pretextual because it was absent from the contemporaneous documents and followed his objections and refusal. 

The complaint then turns to the internal investigation. He says he submitted or participated in a Meta SpeakUp report on September 26, 2024. On October 3, 2024, according to the filing, a Meta representative communicated that discussions concerning his severance package should be paused while the matter was investigated. Approximately forty-eight hours before he signed his separation agreement on or about December 19, 2024, the complaint says Meta’s investigation representative represented words to the effect that the company had completed its investigation, found no evidence and closed the case. 

He alleges that representation was materially incomplete or misleading because the investigation had not adequately examined the proposed and substitute letters, the immigration-related communications, his report, the October 3 communication, or the connection between his refusal and his termination. He is asking the court to rescind or set aside the separation agreement and release, and to declare that any arbitration or delegation provision in it was not formed or is unenforceable. 

The complaint puts his confirmed economic damages at $565,574.76 in compensation-related losses and approximately $490,940.32 in forfeited equity, subject to proof and adjustment based on Meta’s records. His wife is a co-plaintiff and seeks only derivative loss-of-consortium damages recognised under New Jersey law.