Exxon Defeats DACA Recipient’s Job Bias Suit at Fourth Circuit

A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., declined to extend workplace protections to a Mexican citizen in the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program who claimed ExxonMobil Corp. unlawfully used his immigration status to rescind a paid internship offer. The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on Monday affirmed a lower court order dismissing a proposed class action lodged by DACA recipient Aldo De Leon Resendiz, who initially secured an internship to work at an Exxon facility in Baton Rouge, La., for the spring 2019 semester. The former North Carolina State University engineering student contended that Exxon knew he wasn’t a citizen when it recruited him, and the oil giant did an about-face after it became clear that he lacked permanent authorization to work in the US. De Leon failed to show how Exxon’s decision amounts to a violation of Section 1981 of the 1866 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits alienage or citizenship discrimination, Judge Julius N. Richardson wrote for the Fourth Circuit. The lower court correctly found that DACA isn’t protected by the federal anti-bias law, and Exxon’s hiring policy treats job applicants according to the work authorization conferred by their immigration status, said the opinion joined by Judges A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. and Henry F. Floyd. De Leon also cited the US Supreme Court’s June 2021 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, Ga., to bolster their discrimination claims. Bostock held that LGBTQ bias is a type of sex discrimination under a federal workplace law, and plaintiffs can prevail if they show that a protected trait was one of several motivating factors leading to a firing, discipline, or other adverse employment action. The Fourth Circuit can use this logic to conclude that Exxon’s decision violated the protections in Section 1981 if the court finds that immigration status and work authorization are linked to citizenship, an attorney for De Leon told the appeals court during oral argument in October 2022. But at least one judge was skeptical of this argument, which is being used by the plaintiffs’ bar to extend Bostock beyond the LGBTQ worker rights realm. In addition to the “but-for causation” standard, De Leon must plausibly allege facts that Exxon’s alleged discrimination was intentional, Richardson said at the time and reiterated in Monday’s opinion. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund represents De Leon. Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP represents Exxon. For more information, visit us at https://www.beverlyhillsimmigrationlaw.com/.