Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Ex-Meta manager sues company, supervisor over alleged retaliation tied to immigration petition letter, (Aug 20, 2026)

By Patricia K. Ruiz, J.D.

The employee alleges he was fired for refusing to sign statements for a national interest waiver application.

A former manager with Meta Platforms, Inc., has sued the company and his direct supervisor in federal court in New Jersey, alleging he was terminated after refusing to sign a managerial reference letter that he believed contained inaccurate statements for use in an employment-related immigration petition. He claims in the lawsuit that he objected both to specific representations in the proposed letter and to what he characterized as Meta's selective allocation of immigration-related support to certain employees. The complaint asserts federal and state retaliation claims, wrongful discharge, fraudulent inducement related to a separation agreement, and a derivative loss-of-consortium claim.

Proposed immigration letter. James Tillinghast and his spouse filed suit Aug. 17 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Meta Platforms Inc., as well as his direct manager and unidentified John Doe defendants. The complaint states that Tillinghast worked for Meta for approximately four and a half years and, at the relevant time, served as Manager, Product Design, Monetization GEN-AI Group.

According to the complaint, Meta and its outside immigration counsel coordinated an I-140 EB-2 National Interest Waiver petition concerning another Meta employee, in or about April or May 2024. The suit alleges that a proposed managerial reference letter was prepared and presented to Tillinghast for signature. The proposed letter attributed approximately $638 million in incremental advertising revenue to the other employee, stated or implied that he had created algorithms or artificial-intelligence tools, and described leadership responsibilities that Tillinghast believed overstated that employee's role. The suit further alleges that the letter included assertions concerning that employee’s national importance and the interest of the United States in facilitating his work.

Revised the letter. Tillinghast alleges he lacked a factual basis to endorse several of those statements and consulted Meta internal immigration counsel regarding what he could truthfully support. According to the complaint, he revised the letter to include only statements he could endorse, removed broader national-interest assertions, and declined to sign the broader version. The lawsuit states that Tillinghast's refusal was based on his belief that he should not submit materially inaccurate statements to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services or lend his professional credentials to unsupported assertions in an immigration proceeding.

Immigration-support practices. The complaint alleges that Tillinghast objected internally to what he believed was Meta's selective use of a company-coordinated immigration-support process for certain Chinese-national employees. The suit alleges the process involved internal immigration personnel, managers, legal personnel, outside immigration counsel, and requests for managerial reference letters. Tillinghast's objection "was not directed at Chinese nationality, ancestry, immigration status, or lawful employment," the complaint states, but rather at the alleged allocation of employment-related immigration support and the request that he endorse statements he believed were inaccurate.

According to the complaint, Tillinghast raised his concerns during a recurring meeting attended by, among others, his direct manager. After Tillinghast declined to sign the broader version of the letter, the national-interest portion was routed to his direct manager, who then supplied or signed a substitute letter. The complaint alleges that the manager and other supervisors had contemporaneous knowledge of Tillinghast's objections and refusal to sign the letter.

Termination. The suit alleges Meta revoked Tillinghast's access to internal systems on or about August 29, 2024, and formally terminated his employment effective September 30, 2024. According to the complaint, contemporaneous termination materials did not identify underperformance, a performance-improvement plan, written warning, documented performance deficiency, or individualized performance rationale as the basis for termination. The complaint further alleges that Meta later advanced an oral explanation based on underperformance, which Tillinghast characterizes as pretextual.

Separation agreement allegations. Tillinghast also challenges a separation agreement he signed on or about December 19, 2024. The complaint alleges that after he submitted or participated in a Meta SpeakUp report, company representatives stated that discussions regarding severance should be paused while the matter was investigated.

The suit alleges that approximately 48 hours before he signed the agreement, a Meta investigation representative stated that the company had completed its investigation, found no evidence, and closed the matter. According to the complaint, that representation was materially incomplete or misleading because the investigation allegedly did not adequately examine key documents, communications, and the connection between his refusal to sign the letter and his termination.

The complaint asserts that Tillinghast relied on those representations when signing the agreement and seeks rescission or avoidance of the agreement and release, among other relief.

Claims, requested relief. The lawsuit asserts claims for retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, retaliation under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, aiding and abetting retaliation under the NJLAD against the direct supervisor, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, fraudulent inducement and rescission or avoidance, and a derivative loss-of-consortium claim by his spouse.

The complaint alleges confirmed economic damages of $565,574.76 in compensation-related losses and approximately $490,940.32 in forfeited equity, subject to proof and adjustment. Plaintiffs also seek additional compensatory damages, front pay, punitive damages where available, attorneys' fees, costs, interest, and other relief.

The case is No. 3:26-cv-10472.

Companies: Meta Platforms, Inc.

News: LitigationNewsTrends ImmigrationNews Immigration Discrimination Retaliation Discharge RemediesDamages