Legal Battle Continues Over Spitting Attack During 2021 BLM Protest

by Jamil Ragland

HARTFORD, CT – A countersuit launched by a White woman who spit on a Black woman at a Black Lives Matter protest during the height of the pandemic has resulted in a split decision that allows part of the countersuit to continue forward.
Yuliya Gilshteyn filed a countersuit in response to a lawsuit filed by Keren Prescott, the woman Gilshteyn spat upon. Prescott filed the lawsuit in December 2021, seeking damages for assault, battery, infliction of emotional distress, and intimidation based on bigotry or bias for the attack in which Gilshteyn spit on her. In her countersuit, Gilshteyn alleged assault, battery, and infliction of emotional distress.
Both lawsuits stem from an altercation between Prescott and Gilshteyn on Jan. 6, 2021, during competing protests at the state capitol. Prescott was at the capitol as part of a Black Lives Matter protest, while Gilshteyn was present at a medical freedom rally. Gilshteyn, who was unmasked, approached Prescott, who was masked and immuno-compromised, shouting anti-BLM slogans. When Prescott asked Gilshteyn to back away, Gilshteyn spit in her face and walked away.

Gilshteyn was arrested and charged with multiple crimes, including deprivation of rights, a hate crime statute, and criminal attempt to commit assault in the third degree. Gilshteyn was entered into a special rehabilitation program for first offenders, and after successfully completing the program, the chargers were dropped.
While the criminal component of the case has been settled, the civil lawsuits continue to wind through court.
RELATED
OP-ED | Making It Expensive For Racism To Exist
Keep reading
Judge Concludes Racism Was Behind Capitol Spitting Incident
Keep reading
Hearing In Jan 6th Spitting Incident Wraps Up
Keep reading
Trial Over Capitol Spitting Incident Gets Underway
Keep reading
BLM Activist Continues To Press for Justice
Keep reading
According to court documents, Gishteryn claims that Prescott shouted at her through a megaphone from less than 10 feet away. The countersuit alleges that Prescott’s actions created a risk of noise-induced hearing loss, which forms the basis for the assault and battery count. Gilshteyn also alleged that Prescott doxxed her, putting her personal information on Facebook which led to harassing and threatening messages that called Gilshteyn a “racist, white supremacist.” That behavior forms the basis for the emotional distress claim.

Prescott’s lawyer, attorney Ken Krayeske, moved to have the lawsuit dismissed under Connecticut’s anti-Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) law. Passed unanimously by the General Assembly in 2017, the anti-SLAPP law creates a special motion to dismiss lawsuits in an expedited manner if the suit seeks to punish a defendant for protected speech activities.
“The question was, is protesting for Black Lives Matter a First Amendment protected activity? Clearly it is, and that’s why the judge ruled in our favor,” Krayeske said during a phone interview. The court dismissed Gishteryn’s claims of assault and battery, and ordered that she pay almost $13,000 in attorney’s fees. However, the court allowed the third allegation of emotional distress to remain, because doxxing is not protected speech.
“The claim that my client doxxed the plaintiff is frivolous, but we’ll have it dismissed in some other way,” Krayeske said.

The original lawsuit is still pending, as it is before an appellate court. There is no timeframe for when the court will rule, but Krayeske believes it will be any day and is eager to bring the lawsuit to a conclusion that’s favorable to his client.
“The only way to eradicate racism is to bankrupt the people who engage in it,” he said. “We have to make racism too expensive to practice.”
Gilshteyn’s attorney, Norm Pattis, was not immediately available for comment.