Moroshkin v. National Council on the Aging
- Garnett
- 1:23-cv-01301
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 13
In Moroshkin v. National Council on Aging, Judge Garnett granted both dismissal motions, dismissed all claims with prejudice, and denied Moroshkin’s cross-motion as moot.
Sergei Moroshkin’s claims against the National Council on Aging Senior Community Service Employment Program and Siveem El-Nashar were dismissed with prejudice. Moroshkin’s cross-motion was denied as moot, the case was closed, and permission to appeal without paying filing fees was denied.
What happened
In Moroshkin v. National Council on Aging, Sergei Moroshkin, who represented himself, sued the National Council on Aging Senior Community Service Employment Program and Siveem El-Nashar. He alleged that he faced race and national-origin discrimination and retaliation after complaints about his computer training, internship placement, and termination from a senior employment program.
The court found that Moroshkin’s allegations did not support claims against either defendant. The National Council was not involved in the program Moroshkin attended, and copying it on a complaint did not create legal responsibility. The court also found that Title VII does not impose liability on individual defendants and that Moroshkin did not allege facts showing discrimination based on a protected characteristic or a discriminatory government policy or practice against El-Nashar.
Judge Garnett granted both motions to dismiss, dismissed all claims with prejudice, and denied Moroshkin’s cross-motion as moot. The court also denied permission to amend the complaint again, closed the case, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees.
The detailed version
- Moroshkin v. National Council on the Aging · No. 1:23-cv-01301
- Garnett
- Jan. 6, 2025
Background
Sergei Moroshkin proceeded without a lawyer and filed the action on February 13, 2023. After the court directed him to amend his complaint, he filed an amended complaint naming the National Council on Aging Senior Community Service Employment Center (NCOA) and Siveem El-Nashar, identified as Senior Director of the Older Adult Workforce at the New York City Department for the Aging. Moroshkin had previously named Lorraine Cortes-Vazquez, but he dropped her from the amended complaint.
Moroshkin participated in the Senior Community Service Employment Program through the New York City Department for the Aging. He alleged that he was not provided a Chromebook for job searching, was moved from computer training to an internship without authorization, and complained about discrimination. He further alleged that, after he made additional complaints, El-Nashar directed his termination from the program. His amended complaint asserted race and national-origin discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and racial discrimination under 42 U.S.C. § 1981.
NCOA’s Motion
NCOA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not allege enough facts to support a legally plausible claim. NCOA argued that Moroshkin had mistakenly named it because he participated in a program operated by the New York City Department for the Aging, not an NCOA-operated program.
The court agreed. It found that Moroshkin’s allegations and incorporated documents concerned the New York City Department for the Aging and its employees. The only alleged connection to NCOA was that Moroshkin copied NCOA on a January 3, 2023 complaint. The court held that this did not establish liability for discrimination or retaliation. It granted NCOA’s motion to dismiss and stated that amendment as to NCOA would be futile, so that dismissal was with prejudice.
El-Nashar’s Motion
The court dismissed the Title VII claims against El-Nashar because Title VII imposes liability on employers and covered entities, not individual defendants. The court also held that Section 1981 does not provide a separate private claim against state actors; Section 1983 is the exclusive federal remedy for those alleged violations by a state governmental unit.
Even treating Moroshkin’s Section 1981 allegations as a Section 1983 claim, the court found that the complaint failed to state a claim. It did not allege that El-Nashar acted under a discriminatory policy, custom, or practice of the New York City Department for the Aging. It also did not allege facts showing that the Chromebook decision, internship placement, or termination occurred because of Moroshkin’s race, ethnicity, or another protected characteristic. The court therefore granted El-Nashar’s motion to dismiss.
Leave to Amend and Disposition
The court denied Moroshkin leave to amend again. It concluded that he had already had two opportunities to plead his claims and that further amendment would be futile because the allegations did not show a potentially actionable claim that could be addressed in federal court.
The court granted El-Nashar’s motion to dismiss and granted NCOA’s motion to dismiss. It dismissed all claims against all defendants with prejudice. It denied Moroshkin’s cross-motion to deny El-Nashar’s motion to dismiss as moot, closed the case, and denied permission to appeal without paying filing fees. Because the court resolved the case through Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal without deciding the underlying discrimination allegations after trial or other merits proceedings, this summary classifies the order as procedural.
Read the full 13-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.