(42 U.S.C. §1981)   10.  The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 requires employers to complete  and maintain a Form I-9 for each of their employees, whether such employees are U.S. citizens or  noncitizens. See 8 U.S.C. § 1324A.   11.  Both employees and employers must complete Form I-9.  An employee must  provide the employer with acceptable documents confirming both his identity and employment  authorization.   12.  Acceptable documents for Form I-9 verification are listed on the form and include,  among others, a federal Employment Authorization Document (“EAD”).  The EAD proves an  individual is allowed to work in the United States for a specific time period.  By itself an EAD  establishes both identity and employment authorization.  No further proof is necessary to satisfy  the documentation requirement of Form I-9 and prove that the employee is authorized to work in the  United States.   14.  On June 15, 2012, the Secretary of DHS announced that the agency, through its  exercise of prosecutorial discretion, would not seek to remove certain immigrants brought to the  United States as children but instead consider them for grants of deferred action.  The initiative is  known as DACA.   15.  Deferred action under DACA is a discretionary grant of authorized stay in the  United States by the federal government.  Deferred action under DACA is valid for a period of two  years and is renewable for additional two-year periods.   16.  DACA recipients are eligible to obtain federal work authorization and work in the  United States.  Work authorized DACA recipients possess an EAD and a Social Security number.   17.  DACA’s purpose, as explained by President Obama was to “[stop] expel[ling]  talented young individuals who . . . [have] been raised as Americans; understand themselves to be  part of this country . . . [and] who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses or defend our  country.”1   18.  As of January 31, 2020 USCIS had approved 825,623 initial applications for DACA.2   20.  Defendant M&T intentionally discriminates against noncitizen applicants for  employment in the United States on the basis of alienage by utilizing a facially discriminatory  policy and/or practice that categorically denies the opportunity to enter employment contracts to  lawfully present noncitizens who are authorized to work in the U.S., and whose valid federal work  authorization contains a future expiration date.   21.  M&T further subjects noncitizen applicants to employment discrimination on the  basis of alienage by imposing additional requirements that are not imposed on U.S. citizen  applicants, and rejects the noncitizen applicants who cannot satisfy the additional requirements.   22.  On or about March 14, 2018, M&T denied Ms. Kodra’s application for a job as a  retail branch manager within the Bank’s Management Development Program on the basis of these  policies and practices, because she was a noncitizen with a valid EAD, and despite the fact that Ms.  Kodra was authorized to work in the United States.   23.  In January 2018, Ms. Kodra applied for a position as a retail branch manager  within the Management Development Program of M&T’s Student, Graduate and Professional  Training Programs.  Ms. Kodra submitted her application through Defendant M&T’s online job  application portal for students.   24.  M&T’s job listing for the retail branch manager position stated that an applicant  must be “Authorized to work in the U.S. on a full-time, permanent basis without additional  sponsorship."     26.  During the last week of January 2018, M&T’s Banking Officer-Management  Development Program Recruiter, Jessica Vicario, emailed Ms. Kodra to say that Ms. Kodra’s initial  application qualified her for the next phase of the application process, which was a telephone  interview.   27.  On February 1, 2018, Ms. Vicario interviewed Ms. Kodra by telephone and stated  that she was impressed by Ms. Kodra’s application.    28.  Also on February 1, 2018, following the telephonic interview, Ms. Vicario  sent a follow-up email to Ms. Kodra. In the email, Ms. Vicario asked Ms. Kodra to review the  various positions available and submit her top five position requests.   29.  In response to Ms. Vicario’s post-interview email, Ms. Kodra emailed Ms. Vicario  on February 19, 2018 to express her interest in the retail branch manager position in either the  Philadelphia or the New York office.   30.  On February 22, 2018, Ms. Vicario acknowledged receipt of Ms. Kodra’s February  19, 2018 email and requested that Ms. Kodra complete the online application through a link Ms.  Vicario provided.  Ms. Vicario explained that submitting the application via this online platform  allowed for coordinated communication between the scheduling team, the hiring managers and rest  of the team.    31.  On March 4, 2018, Ms. Kodra completed the online application and answered  affirmatively that she had work authorization.  That same day, Ms. Kodra sent an email to Ms.  Vicario to confirm that she had completed the online application.  Ms. Kodra asked Ms. Vicario if  there were any additional steps Ms. Kodra needed to take in the hiring process.    33.  On March 12, 2018, Ms. Kodra responded by email to Ms. Vicario confirming her  request for employment in “Upstate New York (Hudson Valley)” and stated, “I will not require  sponsorship.  I have employment authorization and expect to have it until 2020.”    34.  On March 14, 2018 Ms. Vicario sent an email to Ms. Kodra that stated:  “Unfortunately, we require that candidates have permanent work authorization for consideration in  the Management Development Program.”     35.  If Ms. Kodra did not belong to a class of non-citizens whose work authorization has  a future expiration date, M&T would have entered into an employment contract with Ms. Kodra for  the retail branch manager position with the Management Development Program.   36.  DACA recipients are not the only class of noncitizens who possess federal work  authorization but are ineligible to work for M&T because of its facially discriminatory policy and/or  practice that discriminates on the basis of alienage.  M&T’s requirements for entering into a  work contract also discriminate against work-authorized asylees, deferred action recipients,  trafficking survivors and relatives of visa holders, among other classes of noncitizens who are  authorized to work in the United States and whose valid federal work authorization contains a future  expiration date.  38.  Ms. Kodra is a member of the Class.   39.  Upon information and belief, the members of the Class are so numerous that joinder  of all of them is impracticable.  M&T is a large corporation with offices throughout the eastern  United States, USCIS has approved over 800,000 applications for DACA, and there are thousands  of individuals who, despite having work authorization, do not meet M&T’s requirements for  employment.  Ms. Kodra does not know the precise number of Class members because this  information is within the possession of M&T.   40.  Questions of law and fact are common to the Class and these questions predominate  over any questions affecting only individual members.  Common questions include, among others:  (1) whether it is M&T’s policy or practice to reject job applicants or terminate current workers who  are authorized to work in the United States because they are not United States citizens and because  they possess valid work authorization that is limited in duration; (2) whether M&T’s policy, as set  forth above, deprives Plaintiff and the Class of the right to contract for work in the United States  in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981; (3) whether Ms. Kodra and the Class are entitled to back-pay  relief; (4) whether Ms. Kodra and the Class suffered harm by reason of M&T’s unlawful policy;  (5) whether Ms. Kodra and the Class are entitled to compensatory damages; (6) whether Ms. Kodra  and the Class are entitled to punitive damages; (7) whether equitable and injunctive relief for the  Class is warranted; and (8) the scope of a resulting permanent injunction.   42.  Ms. Kodra will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  members of the Class.  Ms. Kodra has no conflict with any Class member.  Ms. Kodra is  committed to the goal of altering M&T’s hiring policies and practices to end discrimination against  Ms. Kodra and those who are similarly situated by virtue of their noncitizenship and legal  authorization to work in the United States.   43.  Ms. Kodra has retained competent counsel experienced in complex employment  discrimination class actions.   44.  The precise number of individuals affected by M&T’s unlawful policy and practice  is ascertainable through M&T’s records and therefore the proposed class is ascertainable.   45.  Class certification is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (b)(2) because M&T  has acted and/or refused to act on grounds that are generally applicable to the Class, which makes  declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to Plaintiff and the Class as a whole appropriate.  M&T  has refused to hire and/or has terminated noncitizens ostensibly because they are not citizens or are  noncitizens whose federal work authorization is limited as to duration of time.  The Class members  are entitled to injunctive relief to end M&T’s common, uniform, unfair, and discriminatory policy  and/or practice including priority instatement and other relief that will make Class members whole.   47.  Plaintiff Ms. Kodra incorporates by reference the allegations in all preceding  paragraphs.   48.  Ms. Kodra brings this claim on her own behalf and on behalf of the Class.   49.  Ms. Kodra is a person within the jurisdiction of the United States.   50.  Ms. Kodra is not a citizen of the United States.   51.  Ms. Kodra is lawfully present and authorized to work in the United States.   52.  Defendant M&T intentionally discriminated against Plaintiff and the Class on the  basis of alienage by denying them contracts to work or deterring them from pursuing employment  opportunities because they are noncitizens whose federal work authorization is time limited and  despite their legal authorization to work in the United States.   53.  M&T’s intentional discrimination against Plaintiff and the Class has interfered with  their right to make and enforce work contracts.   55.  Ms. Kodra and Class members have no plain, adequate, or complete remedy at law  to redress the wrongs alleged in this Complaint, and the injunctive relief sought in this action is the  only means to secure complete and adequate relief.  Ms. Kodra and the Class she seeks to represent  now suffer, and will continue to suffer, irreparable injury from M&T’s discriminatory acts and  omissions.   56.  M&T’s conduct has caused, and continues to cause, Ms. Kodra and Class members  substantial losses in earnings and other work benefits.  9.  The United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) provides Form  I-9 to employers within the United States to allow employers to verify the identity and employment  authorization of individuals they wish to hire.   Background  