Mulero-Carrillo v. Roman-Hernandez
790 F.3d 99
1st Cir.2015Background
- In 2007 a major bribery scandal revealed that some Puerto Rico licenses were granted after exam-score manipulation; the legislature enacted Law 139 (2008) reforming the Board and requiring delegation of exam preparation to an external body.
- The Puerto Rico Board delegated test creation to the NBME; the Board set a PRMLE passing score of 700 by regulation while the NBME-set national USMLE passing score is 500.
- Plaintiffs are twenty foreign-trained medical graduates who elected to take the PRMLE, failed it, and sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of substantive due process and equal protection based on the PRMLE’s 700 passing score.
- Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief (retroactive application of a 500 passing score) and damages against the Board and individual Board officers.
- The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim and on immunity grounds; the First Circuit reviewed de novo and affirmed, concluding Plaintiffs pleaded no plausible constitutional violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 700 PRMLE passing score violates equal protection by treating PRMLE takers differently than USMLE takers | The 700 vs. 500 passing-score disparity is arbitrary discrimination denying equal protection | Different exams; PRMLE and USMLE are not similarly situated so different passing scores are rationally related to legitimate goals | Dismissed — PRMLE and USMLE takers are not similarly situated; no plausible equal protection violation |
| Whether the 700 passing score violates substantive due process (liberty/property interest to practice) | Arbitrary passing-score imposes irrational barrier to practicing medicine | Licensing standards are social/economic regulation and need only a rational basis related to public health and competence | Dismissed — only rational-basis review applies and Plaintiffs failed to negate any conceivable rational basis |
| Whether Plaintiffs adequately alleged discrimination against foreign-trained applicants as an illicit classification | Board intentionally set higher PRMLE score to disadvantage foreign-trained applicants | Even if foreign-trained applicants more often take PRMLE, imposing a higher score can be rationally related to concerns about varied foreign school standards | Dismissed — Plaintiffs did not plead facts negating reasonable justifications |
| Whether individual officers are liable for damages (qualified/absolute immunity) | Officers should be liable in their individual capacities for constitutional violations | Officers entitled to immunity; qualified immunity shields them unless a clearly established constitutional right was violated | Dismissed — no plausible constitutional violation, so qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Schware v. Bd. of Bar Examiners of the State of N.M., 353 U.S. 232 (1957) (state licensing requirements must have a rational connection to fitness to practice)
- Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U.S. 89 (1984) (state sovereign immunity bars suit in federal court without consent)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) (rational-basis review: upholds classification if any conceivable legitimate state interest exists)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (1982) (framework for official immunity; qualified immunity for executive officials)
- Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991) (individual-capacity suits may proceed without Eleventh Amendment immunity)
- Barrington Cove Ltd. P'ship v. R.I. Hous. & Mortg. Fin. Corp., 246 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2001) (standard for similarly situated in equal protection comparisons)
- Parella v. Ret. Bd. of Rhode Island Employees' Ret. Sys., 173 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1999) (discusses Eleventh Amendment and ability to resolve merits before immunity questions)