Case 2:21-cv-01379 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
` WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`AT SEATTLE
`
`
`ROYER RAMIREZ RUIZ,
`
`
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`Case No.:
`
`v.
`
`ZOOM VIDEO COMMUNICATIONS, INC.,
`a California company,
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`COMPLAINT
`
` Defendant.
`
`COMES NOW Plaintiff, Royer Ramirez Ruiz, and states and alleges the following facts
`
`and causes of action against the Defendant, Zoom Video Communications, Inc.:
`
` JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1.
`
`This Court has original jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because Plaintiff’s 42
`
`U.S.C. § 1981 claim arises under federal law. This Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
`
`Plaintiff’s state law claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 because this claim is so related to the federal
`
`claim that it forms part of the same case or controversy. This Court also has diversity jurisdiction
`
`over Plaintiff’s claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the matter in controversy exceeds
`
`$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and Plaintiff is a citizen of Washington and Defendant is
`
`a citizen of California.
`
`2.
`
`Venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -1-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
` 200 WEST MERCER STREET, STE. 506
` SEATTLE, WA 98119
` 206.513.7485
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01379 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`Defendant resides in this district and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to
`
`the claim occurred in this district.
`
`PARTIES
`
`3.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiff Royer Ramirez Ruiz is a resident of the state of Washington.
`
`Defendant Zoom Video Communications, Inc. (hereinafter “Zoom”) is a
`
`California company doing business in Washington. Zoom is an employer under the
`
`Washington Law Against Discrimination (“WLAD”), RCW 49.60.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff was born in Mexico in 1995.
`
`In 2001, Plaintiff was brought to the United States by his parents, who were in
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`America on a tourist visa. He has remained a resident of the United States since that time.
`
`12
`
`Although he is technically not a United States citizen, he considers himself an American.
`
`13
`
`7.
`
`In 2012, Plaintiff applied to the United States Department of Homeland Security
`
`14
`
`(“DHS”) to become a DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) recipient.
`
`15
`
`8.
`
`DACA applicants must undergo rigorous biographical and biometric
`
`16
`
`background checks. To be considered, DACA applicants must meet the following criteria:
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Have entered the United States under the age of 16;
`
`Have continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007;
`
`Be currently enrolled in school, have graduated from high school, have
`
`obtained a general education development certificate, or have been
`
`honorably discharged from the U.S. Coast Guard or Armed Forces;
`
`d.
`
`Have not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor
`
`offense, multiple misdemeanor offenses, or are otherwise not a threat to
`
`national security or public safety; and
`
`e.
`
`Have been under the age of 30 as of June 5, 2012.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
` 200 WEST MERCER STREET, STE. 506
` SEATTLE, WA 98119
` 206.513.7485
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01379 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`9.
`
`Plaintiff’s DACA application was approved on October 24, 2012, for a period
`
`of two years. Plaintiff has renewed his DACA status every two years since that time.
`
`10.
`
`For each DACA renewal, DHS has issued Plaintiff an Employment
`
`Authorization Card, authorizing him to work in the United States. He is currently authorized to
`
`work in the United States until April 2022.
`
`11.
`
`In 2017, Plaintiff obtained a bachelor’s degree in applied mathematics with a
`
`minor in physics from the University of Central Arkansas, graduating with a 3.6 GPA.
`
`12.
`
`Since graduating, Plaintiff has worked in the fields of software development and
`
`data engineering, including work as a DevOps engineer. DevOps is a set of practices which
`
`10
`
`combines software development and information technology operations.
`
`11
`
`13. On or around July 20, 2021, Plaintiff was contacted over LinkedIn by Uthraa
`
`12
`
`Manohar, a Technical Sourcer, regarding open engineering positions at Zoom. After
`
`13
`
`confirming that Plaintiff was interested, Manohar invited Plaintiff to learn more about the
`
`14
`
`positions and scheduled an initial interview with Zoom’s Technical Recruiter, Farrah Fattal.
`
`15
`
`14. Manohar also checked whether Plaintiff needed any sponsorship to move
`
`16
`
`forward. Plaintiff confirmed he did not need sponsorship.
`
`17
`
`15. On or around July 22, 2021, Plaintiff had an initial interview with Fattal. They
`
`18
`
`discussed two open positions at Zoom; a SecOps (“security”) engineering position and a
`
`19
`
`MLOps (“machine learning”) engineering position. Plaintiff indicated that he was more
`
`20
`
`interested in the MLOps Engineering position. MLOps is a set of practices that combines
`
`21
`
`machine learning, DevOps, and data engineering.
`
`22
`
`16.
`
`Fattal was managing interviews for the SecOps position, while her colleague,
`
`23
`
`Russ Oeser, was managing interviews for the MLOps position. Fattal referred Plaintiff to
`
`24
`
`Oeser.
`
`25
`
`17.
`
`Before forwarding Plaintiff’s information to Oeser, Fattal asked the standard
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
` 200 WEST MERCER STREET, STE. 506
` SEATTLE, WA 98119
` 206.513.7485
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01379 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`HR questions regarding work authorization. Plaintiff confirmed that he was legally authorized
`
`to work in the US. Fattal then referred Plaintiff to Oeser for a follow up interview to discuss
`
`the MLOps Engineering position.
`
`18. On or around July 26, 2021, Plaintiff had a video call with Oeser. They
`
`discussed the MLOps position and Oeser outlined how Plaintiff’s current background made
`
`him an ideal candidate for the position. Oeser showed quite a bit of interest in having Plaintiff
`
`join the team.
`
`19. As the call was wrapping up, Oeser asked Plaintiff if he needed sponsorship for
`
`the position. Just as Plaintiff had previously told Manohar and Fattal, he again confirmed that
`
`10
`
`he did not need sponsorship and said he was legally authorized to work in the U.S.
`
`11
`
`20.
`
`Instead of dropping the matter, however, Oeser began asking follow-up
`
`12
`
`questions about Plaintiff’s immigration status. He questioned whether Plaintiff was a citizen,
`
`13
`
`and when Plaintiff said he was not a citizen, he asked “if you are not a citizen, does this mean
`
`14
`
`you are a permanent resident?”
`
`15
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff continued to reassure Oeser that he was legally authorized to work in
`
`16
`
`the U.S. and said that he was neither a citizen nor a resident. Despite this, Oeser continued to
`
`17
`
`pressure Plaintiff to answer what kind of protected program he was under that granted him
`
`18
`
`work authorization without being a citizen or a resident.
`
`19
`
`22.
`
`Plaintiff tried to dodge the question multiple times, not wanting to share his
`
`20
`
`specific immigration status and knowing that at this point in the hiring process he was not
`
`21
`
`required to share anything other than that he was legally authorized to work in the U.S.
`
`22
`
`23. As Oeser continued to pressure him, Plaintiff became worried that he would be
`
`23
`
`dropped from the hiring process if he did not answer. Due to this fear and Oeser’s continued
`
`24
`
`questioning, Plaintiff informed him that he was part of DACA, a protected group in the U.S.
`
`25
`
`that has work authorization.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
` 200 WEST MERCER STREET, STE. 506
` SEATTLE, WA 98119
` 206.513.7485
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01379 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`24. Oeser responded “ooh, that might be an issue” and said he would check
`
`internally to make sure it would not be an issue before sending Plaintiff’s resume to the hiring
`
`manager.
`
`25.
`
`Plaintiff was upset by Oeser’s response, but he was not concerned because, as
`
`he had stated to Oeser repeatedly, he had legal authorization to work in the U.S., and had held
`
`multiple jobs in the past without any issues.
`
`26. On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff received an email from Oeser stating, “Hi Royer,
`
`does not look like we can move forward due to immigration. I can give you more information
`
`if you want to chat tomorrow.”
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff was shocked and upset by this email, to the point that he was
`
`11
`
`physically shaking. He had sacrificed a significant amount of time preparing for multiple
`
`12
`
`rounds of interviews with Zoom and had never experienced such blatant discrimination in a
`
`13
`
`professional setting before, making him feel disposable and worthless.
`
`14
`
`28.
`
`Plaintiff responded to Oeser’s email within a few minutes, hoping to receive a
`
`15
`
`quick response and explanation. He said, “Hi Russ, I’m definitely interested in understanding
`
`16
`
`why my immigration status would disqualify me from this position. It has never been an issue
`
`17
`
`in the past. I’m authorized to work in the US.”
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiff never received a response from Oeser or from Zoom.
`
`COUNT I – WLAD CITIZENSHIP/IMMIGRATION STATUS DISCRIMINATION
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every averment of this
`
`21
`
`Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`22
`
`31.
`
`Plaintiff’s status as a non-citizen immigrant, who is legally authorized to work in
`
`23
`
`the United States, places him in a protected class.
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiff was qualified for the MLOps position.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -5-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
` 200 WEST MERCER STREET, STE. 506
` SEATTLE, WA 98119
` 206.513.7485
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01379 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`33.
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of his citizenship or
`
`immigration status when it rejected him for a job position solely on the basis of his citizenship or
`
`immigration status.
`
`34.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`damages, including lost wages and emotional distress.
`
`COUNT II - ALIENAGE DISCRIMINATION (42 U.S.C. § 1981)
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference each and every averment of this
`
`Complaint as though fully set forth herein.
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiff’s status as a non-citizen immigrant, who is legally authorized to work in
`
`10
`
`the United States, places him in a protected class.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`37.
`
`Plaintiff was qualified for the MLOps position.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff because of his citizenship or
`
`13
`
`immigration status when it rejected him for a job position solely on the basis of his citizenship or
`
`14
`
`immigration status.
`
`15
`
`39.
`
`Defendant discriminated against Plaintiff on the basis of alienage by denying him
`
`16
`
`the right to make and enforce a contract for work because he is not a citizen, despite his legal
`
`17
`
`authorization to work in the United States.
`
`18
`
`40.
`
`As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff has suffered
`
`19
`
`damages, including lost wages and emotional distress.
`
`20
`
`41.
`
`Defendant acted with malice or reckless disregard to the rights of Plaintiff,
`
`21
`
`thereby entitling Plaintiff to an award of punitive damages in an amount that will punish
`
`22
`
`Defendant and deter it and others from like conduct.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff Royer Ramirez Ruiz requests all damages allowable under Washington
`
`25
`
`and federal law, including the following:
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -6-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
` 200 WEST MERCER STREET, STE. 506
` SEATTLE, WA 98119
` 206.513.7485
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-01379 Document 1 Filed 10/11/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`a.
`
`Compensatory damages, including lost wages and emotional distress
`
`damages;
`
`Punitive damages;
`
`Pre- and post-judgment interest;
`
`
`
`Attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses;
`
`Any and all other and further relief this Court deems just and proper.
`
`
`
`
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all triable issues.
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`Dated this 11th day of October, 2021.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /s/ Matt J. O’Laughlin
`
`
`Matt J. O’Laughlin, WSBA 48706
`Amy K. Maloney, WSBA 55610
`MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
`200 W. Mercer Street, Ste. 506
`Seattle, Washington 98119
`Tel: 206.513.7485
`Fax: 206.260.3231
`matt@pacwestjustice.com
`amy@pacwestjustice.com
`
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT -7-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` MALONEY O’LAUGHLIN, PLLC
` 200 WEST MERCER STREET, STE. 506
` SEATTLE, WA 98119
` 206.513.7485
`
`