Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00345/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00345-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

26

 Pratt also stated a claim for negligence against defendant 1

Applied Measurement Professionals, Inc. (“AMP”). AMP moved for

summary judgment and the court granted that motion on January 31,

2006. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS PRATT, 

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF

PHARMACY, et al., 

Defendants. 

 No. Civ. 05-0345 DFL PAN

MEMORANDUM OF OPINION

AND ORDER

 Plaintiff Thomas Pratt (“Pratt”) failed the pharmacist

licensing examination on three occasions. In this action, he

claims that the grading of the examination discriminated against

him because of his race. Defendants Patricia Harris (“Harris”),

the Executive Officer of the California State Board of Pharmacy

(“CSBP”) and Virginia Herold (“Herold”), Assistant Executive

Officer of the CSBP, move for summary judgment. For the reasons 1

stated below, the court GRANTS defendants’ motion. 

Case 2:05-cv-00345-DFL -PAN Document 90 Filed 04/07/06 Page 1 of 4
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

26

2

Pratt is an African-American male who has taken and failed

the CSBP license exam on three occasions -- June 2002, January

2003, and June 2003. (First Am. Verified Compl. (“FAC”) ¶¶ 1,

4.) Each of the exams that Pratt took contained two parts: (1) a

multiple choice section (“Part 1”); and (2) a short-answer essay

section (“Part 2”). (Id. ¶ 4.) Pratt passed Part 1 of each

test, but failed Part 2. (Id.)

Pratt alleges that the CSBP grading methodology had a

disparate impact on African Americans because the pass rate of

Caucasians was significantly greater than the rate for “people of

color.” (Id. ¶ 7.) However, the CSBP does not compile or keep

statistics of pass rates based on race. (Defs.’ Statement of

Undisputed Facts (“SUF”) ¶¶ 3-6.) Indeed, Pratt testified that

the statistics upon which he relied concerned the pass rates of

“foreigners” and did not show the race of any examinee. (Id. ¶¶

9, 10.) In deposition testimony, Pratt admitted that he did not

know how many African Americans passed or failed any of the

exams. (Id. ¶ 13.) 

Pratt also alleges in his complaint that Harris and Herold

knew of the discrimination and “conspired with one another to

facilitate it.” (FAC ¶ 13.) Specifically, he claims that Harris

and Herold knew that the subjective nature of Part 2 of the exam

allowed graders to grade Caucasians differently from others. 

(Id. ¶ 8.) However, Pratt admitted in his deposition that this

claim is based solely on his unsupported suspicion that the

graders had access to examinees’ photos. (SUF ¶ 16.) In fact,

Case 2:05-cv-00345-DFL -PAN Document 90 Filed 04/07/06 Page 2 of 4
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

26

3

graders do not have access to such photos. (Id. ¶ 18.) 

Pratt does not dispute any of these facts. Instead, he

alleges for the first time in his opposition that defendants

discriminated against African Americans and deprived him of equal

protection and due process because they failed to compile or keep

statistics of pass rates based on race. (Opp’n at 2.) 

To support this claim, Pratt relies upon the expert

declaration of Dr. John Poggio. (Id.) Poggio states that, in

his opinion, defendants’ failure to collect and analyze data on

the race of test takers and those who passed was unjustified and

violated the EEOC Guidelines. (Poggio Decl. ¶ 5.) 

There are a number of problems with this new theory of

liability. First, Pratt failed to disclose Poggio as an expert

witness before the October 7, 2005 deadline set by the pre-trial

scheduling order. (8/24/2005 Order at 3.) Thus, Poggio’s

declaration is inadmissible. Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(2); Cooper v.

Southern Co., 390 F.3d 695, 728 (11th Cir. 2004) (holding that

exclusion of expert's declaration containing statistical evidence

was warranted as sanction for discovery violation where employee

did not properly identify witness as an expert or provide

statement of his intended testimony). 

Second, Pratt did not come close to pleading in the

complaint that defendants had an affirmative duty to compile

statistics on the discriminatory impact of the exam. Allowing

Pratt to proceed on this theory after the close of discovery

would be unfair to defendants. See Coleman v. Quaker Oats Co.,

Case 2:05-cv-00345-DFL -PAN Document 90 Filed 04/07/06 Page 3 of 4
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

26

 Pratt also claims that defendants intentionally 2

discriminated against him because several questions that he

answered correctly were marked as incorrect. (Opp’n at 2-4.) 

However, Pratt does not explain how defendants’ alleged grading

errors demonstrate an intent to discriminate because of race.

4

232 F.3d 1271, 1292 (9th Cir. 2000) (plaintiffs “who failed to

allege [a] discriminatory impact theory of liability may [not]

proceed under that theory after the close of discovery in their

motion for summary judgment.”). Third, even if Pratt had pleaded

such a theory, he fails to cite or provide a copy of the specific

sections of the EEOC guidelines that defendants allegedly

violated. Nor does he cite any case law in support of the novel

theory. Finally, and to come full circle, Pratt makes no showing

that he was prejudiced. The failure to keep statistics does not

equate to a showing that Pratt was wrongfully denied a passing

score or licensure, or that defendants intentionally

discriminated against him, because of his race. 

2

 Because Pratt has failed to produce evidence that defendants

discriminated against him on the basis of his race, the court

GRANTS Harris and Herold’s motion for summary judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 4/6/2006

DAVID F. LEVI

United States District Judge

Case 2:05-cv-00345-DFL -PAN Document 90 Filed 04/07/06 Page 4 of 4