Resendiz v. Exxon Mobil Corp.

ORDER

RICHARD E. MYERS II CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure [DE 14]. In this action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant discriminated against him based on his alienage in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 when it rescinded an offer for Plaintiff to work as an intern at Defendant's Baton Rouge facility. Defendant seeks dismissal of the action arguing that the Complaint is deficient in several respects; Plaintiff disagrees. The court finds that, taking his allegations as true, Plaintiff fails to state a plausible claim under Section 1981 that but for his status as a noncitizen, Defendant would not have rescinded its internship offer. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is granted.

I. Background

A. Plaintiffs Factual Allegations

The following are relevant factual allegations (as opposed to statements of bare legal conclusions, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences) made by the Plaintiff in

2

the operative Complaint (DE 1), which the court must accept as true at this stage of the proceedings pursuant to King v. Rubenstein, 825 F.3d 206, 212 (4th Cir. 2016).

Plaintiff is not a citizen of the United States. He arrived in the United States in 2006 at the age of eight. In 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security granted Plaintiff deferred action and authorization to work in the United States through the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") initiative. He continues to have work authorization and deferred action and does not require a sponsor to be authorized to work in the United States.

Currently, Plaintiff is a student at North Carolina State University pursuing a major in Chemical Engineering and Paper Science. Plaintiff has earned a 4.0 grade point average and is a member of the Goodnight Scholars Program, which includes the university's top science and engineering students.

In approximately September 2018, Defendant's representatives visited North Carolina State University to present at an event sponsored by the Society of Hispanic Professional Engineers and to recruit interns from the Goodnight Scholars program. At the event, recruiters encouraged Plaintiff to apply for a chemical engineer internship with the Defendant. Plaintiff submitted an application on September 15, 2018, for a summer 2019 internship with Defendant. On his application, Plaintiff noted that he was authorized to work in the United States and has been a citizen of Mexico since the year of his birth, 1998. Plaintiff also answered that he would not need future company sponsorship for a visa or work authorization. Plaintiff also mistakenly noted that his work authorization was permanent and not temporary. On September 18, 2018, an ExxonMobil representative interviewed Plaintiff for an internship. The representative and Plaintiff discussed Plaintiffs resume and accomplishments but did not discuss Plaintiffs immigration status or work authorization.

3

On or about September 28, 2018, Plaintiff received an offer for a spring 2019 internship with another company and on or about October 8, 2018, Plaintiff accepted an offer from another company for a 2019 summer internship. On October 12, 2018, Plaintiff received an email from Victoria Burnhauser, Recruiting Operations Analyst for Defendant, with an attached offer letter for a 2019 summer internship at Defendant's Baton Rouge facility. On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff and Defendant agreed that Plaintiff could begin his internship in January 2019 so that he would not have to renege on his acceptance of the summer 2019 internship with the other company. Plaintiff declined the offer by another company for the spring 2019 internship, which would have paid Plaintiff a semi-monthly stipend of $1, 993.00 and a housing allowance of $900.00 per month.

Defendant offered Plaintiff a starting salary of $83, 000.00 and relocation benefits and noted that the "offer is contingent upon the verified, satisfactory completion of requirements outlined in the Conditions of Employment." This notation includes a link, which takes the user to a page on Defendant's website stating, "This employment offer is contingent upon satisfaction of [] requirements that we will verify upon your acceptance," including maintaining satisfactory academic performance and completion of a medical evaluation, drug test, and background check. The page also note that "the work eligibility requirements in the employment application include original documentation to support your status." The webpage continues, "When you accept our offer you will be asked to provide a legible copy of one of the following documents showing your status as a 'Protected Individual' as defined by federal law." The webpage requests documents establishing that an intern is a U.S. Citizen or National, Permanent Resident, Temporary Resident, Refugee, or Asylee.

Defendant required that Plaintiff complete a second application specifically for its Baton Rouge facility and on October 29, 2018, Plaintiff submitted the Baton Rouge application. On this

4

application, Plaintiff again marked that he was legally authorized to work, he was a citizen of Mexico, and he would not need future company sponsorship for a visa or work authorization. In or about November 2018, Defendant sent Plaintiff a $3, 000 moving allowance.

On November 14, 2018, Burnhauser emailed Plaintiff to remind him to upload documents that would demonstrate his eligibility to work in the United States. On or about November 23, 2018, Plaintiff submitted copies of his work authorization document and social security card on Defendant's CareerConnect Portal. Plaintiff also sent an email to Defendant confirming that he had uploaded the required documents. On or about December 6, 2018, Latisha Thomas, a representative from Defendant's Baton Rouge Human Resources office, emailed Plaintiff to inform him that the "U.S. Department of Homeland Security has notified ExxonMobil that Transportation Worker Identification Credential (TWIC) cards are required to enter" the Baton Rouge Refinery and Baton Rouge Chemical Plant. The email included instructions how to complete the TWIC card application and indicated that Plaintiffs employment could begin upon completion of the requirements in the offer letter and receipt of the TWIC card.

Plaintiff promptly started completing the online application for a TWIC card. On realizing that his employment authorization document did not present itself as a valid option for TWIC eligibility, Plaintiff called a Human Resources representative at the Baton Rouge facility who instructed Plaintiff to change his response to the question, "Do you now or will you in the future require company sponsorship for a visa or employment authorization?" from "No" to "Yes." Plaintiff believes the representative advised him to make this change in hopes that it would facilitate Plaintiffs acquisition of a TWIC card, either through sponsorship by Defendant or otherwise. After making this change, Plaintiff resubmitted his application. The representative and Plaintiff did not discuss whether Plaintiff had temporary or permanent work authorization. On or

5

about December 26, 2018, Plaintiff received a call from a Human Resources representative informing him that Defendant was rescinding its internship offer.

On or about December 31, 2018, Plaintiff received a letter from Rosendo Cruz, Defendant's U.S. Recruiting Supervisor, stating Defendant's intent to rescind the internship offer. The letter stated in part, "As described in your offer letter, a prerequisite of employment for the position you are seeking is that you have the permanent or indefinite right to work in the U.S. (i.e. you are a protected individual under 8 USC 1324b - you are a U.S. citizen, U.S. National, U.S. Permanent Resident, U.S. Conditional Permanent Resident, Temporary Resident . . ., Asylee, or Refugee.)[.] We now understand based on your application modified after receiving our offer that you do not meet this eligibility requirement." Defendant did not offer Plaintiff an internship at a jobsite that did not require a TWIC card.

Due to the short window of time between the rescission letter and the start of his spring semester, Plaintiff was unable to obtain an internship to replace the internship that Defendant rescinded. Plaintiff had moved out of his college housing in anticipation of his move to Baton Rouge and hastily secured expensive short-term housing near campus. In or about September 2019, an ExxonMobil representative contacted Plaintiff to discuss a potential internship for the summer 2020. This representative informed Plaintiff the Defendant could place him at a location that did not require a TWIC card. Soon thereafter, Plaintiff spoke with a different ExxonMobil representative who provided him her personal email address for further discussions about potential internship opportunities. However, the representative called Plaintiff later to inform him that Defendant could not offer him an internship.

6

B. Procedural History

Based on these facts, Plaintiff filed the operative Complaint on December 24, 2020 alleging the Defendant violated Section 1981 by discriminating against him on the basis of his alienage. Plaintiff also alleges Defendant has discriminated against a class of protected persons on the same basis. Defendant responded to the Complaint by filing the present motion to dismiss arguing that (1) its policy is not discriminatory because it "does not classify individuals based on citizenship, but rather on immigration...