#### Jerome WATSON, Sammy Ng, Eric Brookington, Robert Abreu, Marco Gonzalez, Plaintiffs, Willie Malone, Desiree Wilson, Eva Lee, Olivia Wilson, Sherre Wilson, Angel Hernandez, Nytricha Smith, Daniel Paulino, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. NEW YORK PRESSMAN’S UNION NUMBER 2, NYP Holdings Inc., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 11-2599.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Dec. 13, 2011.

*501Roosevelt T. Seymour, Brooklyn, NY, for Appellants.

Carl J. Levine, Daniel Engelstein, Levy Ratner, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Counsel for New York Pressman’s Union Number 2); Michael Starr, Katherine Healy Marques, Holland & Knight LLP, New York, N.Y. (Counsel for NYP Holdings Inc.)., for Ap-pellees.

PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, Chief Judge, JOSÉ A. CABRANES, and RICHARD C. WESLEY, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

Plaintiffs brought discrimination complaints against their employer, the *New York Post (“Post”),*and union, the New York Pressman’s Union Number 2 (collectively, “Defendants”), alleging: disparate impact discrimination based on race and sex in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et *seq.*(“Title VII”); intentional discrimination based on race and sex in violation of Title VII; and intentional discrimination based on race in violation of Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history, and the issues presented for review.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Swain, *J.)*dismissed the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. “[W]e review the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss *de novo,*‘construing the complaint liberally, accepting all factual allegations in the complaint as true, and drawing all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor.’ ” *Chase Grp. Alliance LLC v. City of New York Dep’t of Fin.,*620 F.3d 146, 150 (2d Cir.2010) (quoting *Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc.,*282 F.3d 147, 152 (2d Cir.2002)).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” *Ashcroft v. Iqbal,*556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting *Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,*550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)).

*Disparate Impact Claim.*“The basis for a successful disparate impact claim involves a comparison between two groups — those affected and those unaffected by the facially neutral policy. This comparison must reveal that although neutral, the policy in question imposes a significantly adverse or disproportionate impact on a protected group of individuals.” *Tsombanidis v. W. Haven Fire Dep’t,*352 F.3d 565, 575 (2d Cir.2003). “[P]laintiffs must ... utilize the appropriate comparison groups. They must first identify members of a protected group that are affected by the neutral policy and then identify similarly situated persons who are unaffected by the policy.” *Id.*at 576-77.

In alleging that Defendants’ agreement to transfer employees from the *Daily Netos*to the *Post*had a disparate impact, Plaintiffs compare the effects on women and minority employees with the effects on white male employees. These groups are not similarly situated: Women and minorities made up a smaller proportion of the Journeyman classification than they did of the Junior Pressman and Casual classifications. The effects of the transfer — in which transferees were placed at the bottom of the Journeyman shift priority list, giving them seniority over all Junior Pressmen and Casuals — are therefore a function of the pre-existing demographics *502of the workplace. Plaintiffs do not dispute that all Junior Pressmen and Casuals— regardless of race or gender — were impacted by the transfer equally.

Plaintiffs’ argument that the transfer “locks in” the effects of alleged past discrimination does not amount to a disparate impact claim. *See Wards Cove Packing Co. v. Atonio,*490 U.S. 642, 656-57, 109 S.Ct. 2115, 104 L.Ed.2d 738 (1989), *superseded by statute on other grounds,*42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(k); *cf. United States v. Bethlehem, Steel Corp.,*446 F.2d 652 (2d Cir.1971) (invalidating a seniority system as relief for admitted past discrimination).

*Intentional Discrimination Claims.*Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendants acted with the intent to discriminate “are no more than conclusions,” and, as such, “are not entitled to the assumption of truth.” *See Iqbal,*129 S.Ct. at 1950. Plaintiffs’ only relevant factual allegations are that Defendants transferred Journeymen to the *Post*and took other actions that made it more difficult for Casuals and Junior Pressmen to advance with “intent to discriminate.” These are nothing more than “unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s].” *See Iqbal,*129 S.Ct. at 1949. Therefore, Plaintiffs’ intentional discrimination argument fails.

Finding no merit in Plaintiffs’ remaining arguments, we hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.