Alameda v. Association of Social Work Boards

Background

Tara Alameda, Kameca Balan, and Debbie Hamell-Palmer sued the Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB), asserting four claims involving alleged race and national-origin discrimination: disparate impact and disparate treatment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination under Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. The plaintiffs brought the action individually and on behalf of a proposed class.

ASWB develops, administers, and scores examinations used by government entities in licensing social workers. The complaint alleged that Black and Hispanic test takers had lower pass rates than white test takers, and that ASWB knew about the disparities but failed to address them. The plaintiffs alleged that they had failed ASWB examinations multiple times and consequently had been unable to pursue social-work employment and had suffered limits on professional opportunities and earning capacity.

ASWB moved to dismiss the second amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to state a legally plausible claim. In deciding that motion, the court treated the complaint’s factual allegations as true and drew reasonable inferences for the plaintiffs.

Court’s Analysis

Title VII. The plaintiffs argued that ASWB could be liable under a theory that a third party interfered with an employment relationship by performing a core employer responsibility. The court rejected that theory here. It explained that employers of licensed social workers do not license workers or set licensing requirements; New York law assigns those functions to the state. The court therefore found that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged an employer-employee relationship with ASWB and dismissed the Title VII claims.

Section 1981. Section 1981 requires a plausible allegation that the defendant intentionally discriminated because of race and that, but for race, the plaintiff would not have lost a legally protected contractual right. The plaintiffs relied primarily on statistics, including a Rutgers study concerning first-time clinical social-work examination takers. The court declined to infer that results from the clinical examination applied to the separate master’s examination. It also concluded that the reported differences—roughly one standard deviation for Black examinees and less than one standard deviation for Hispanic or Latino examinees—did not make other possible, nondiscriminatory explanations very unlikely. The court therefore dismissed the Section 1981 claim.

New York State Human Rights Law. After dismissing the federal claims, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, meaning its authority to hear related state-law claims, over the New York State Human Rights Law claims. It concluded that no factor such as judicial economy, convenience, fairness, or comity justified retaining those claims, and dismissed them.

Disposition

Judge Kenneth M. Karas granted ASWB’s motion to dismiss. Because the plaintiffs had already amended their complaint twice and had been previously informed of its deficiencies, the court denied further amendment and dismissed the second amended complaint with prejudice. The Clerk was directed to terminate the motion and close the case.