Moroshkin v. Dietsche
- Vyskocil
- 1:22-cv-00864
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
Judge Vyskocil dismissed Moroshkin v. Dietsche because the alleged retaliation was not connected to an employer-employee relationship.
Sergei A. Moroshkin’s federal complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and he was not given permission to amend it. The opinion resolves his claims against Rt. Rev. Andrew Dietsche in this action.
What happened
In Moroshkin v. Dietsche, Sergei A. Moroshkin, representing himself, alleged that a security guard at Trinity Church sprayed him with a chemical agent and that the church later retaliated against him after he filed a lawsuit about the incident. He brought a claim under Title VII’s rule against retaliation in employment discrimination matters and sought $10,000 from Rt. Rev. Andrew Dietsche.
The court explained that a Title VII retaliation claim requires an employer-employee relationship, among other elements. Even accepting Moroshkin’s allegations as true, the court found no such relationship between Moroshkin and Dietsche, the church, or the security guard. The allegations also did not identify another claim arising under federal law.
Judge Vyskocil dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. The court declined to allow an amended complaint because it concluded that the defects could not be fixed by amendment.
The detailed version
- Moroshkin v. Dietsche · No. 1:22-cv-00864
- Vyskocil
- Feb. 18, 2022
Background
Sergei A. Moroshkin filed this action without a lawyer and paid the filing fee. He sued Rt. Rev. Andrew Dietsche, identified in the opinion as the Archbishop of the Episcopalian Diocese of New York. Moroshkin invoked federal-question jurisdiction and claimed that Dietsche violated the anti-retaliation provision of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).
Moroshkin alleged that, on January 10, 2021, a security guard named Louis sprayed him with a chemical agent while he was standing near the gate of Trinity Church waiting to receive a sandwich. He alleged that the spray caused him to lose teeth and suffer cardiac distress and chronic pain. He also alleged that later that evening a person in a black car came to his temporary residence and asked his landlord whether Sergei was living there.
Moroshkin had previously filed a complaint about these events in New York State Supreme Court, New York County. That court dismissed the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal. In this federal action, Moroshkin alleged that Trinity Church retaliated against him for filing the state-court lawsuit by refusing to receive his appellate brief and record at the church’s address and directing delivery to another location. He sought $10,000 from Dietsche for his health damages and the alleged retaliation.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that it could dismiss a complaint, including one filed after the filing fee was paid, if the complaint was frivolous, failed to state a claim, or did not establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction. The court also stated that it must read a self-represented litigant’s pleadings liberally and consider the strongest claims suggested by those pleadings.
The court explained that Title VII retaliation requires an employee to show protected activity, the employer’s knowledge of that activity, adverse action, and a causal connection between the activity and the adverse action. The existence of an employer-employee relationship is also an essential element of a Title VII claim.
The court concluded that Moroshkin’s allegations did not state a Title VII retaliation claim. Even assuming the allegations were true, they did not show an employer-employee relationship between Moroshkin and Dietsche, Trinity Church, or the security guard. The court further concluded that the alleged facts did not suggest another cause of action within federal-question jurisdiction.
Disposition
The court dismissed Moroshkin’s complaint for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Judge Vyskocil declined to grant leave to amend because she concluded that the complaint’s defects could not be cured by amendment. The clerk was directed to mail Moroshkin a copy of the order and record service on the docket.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.