A senior associate was unfairly dismissed by international firm Fieldfisher after being falsely accused of sexual assault by a colleague, a tribunal has found.
The unnamed colleague had accused Djamshid Rustambekov of grabbing her outside a toilet at a post-work event and locking the door, where she claimed he tried to move his hand under her skirt.
Rustambekov was later dismissed by the firm, but an employment tribunal found the complainant's account was not true and identified inadequacies in the internal investigation report.
Employment Judge Anthony said Fieldfisher failed to follow a reasonably fair procedure and had unreasonably dismissed the solicitor.
The tribunal heard that members of the firm’s dispute resolution team met at the Hilton in London last year, following which Colleague 1 (as she was referred to in the ruling) claimed that she had been sexually assaulted. The subsequent investigation also heard from another associate who appeared to support Colleague 1’s account.
Matt Akin, an HR business partner, interviewed members of staff but not Rustambekov, then told the solicitor that disciplinary proceedings were being commenced on the basis of ‘unwanted conduct of a sexual nature’. Rustambekov, who was not provided with notes of any interviews carried out, was suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.
Rustambekov denied following Colleague 1 to the toilet, denied grabbing and pulling her and denied pinning her to the wall or trying to kiss or touch her. He stated that the account advanced was ‘complete fiction’. He also denied there was anything inappropriate involved when he offered her a lift home after another event, or when a number of colleagues had played the bar-room game ‘snog, marry, avoid’.
Rustambekov referred to rivalry in the firm between English speaking and non-native English speaking colleagues, and said the investigation had included no evidence from any Russian-speaking colleague.
The tribunal found that some of the interview evidence had been transposed inaccurately and there was no basis for some of the assertions made. While Rustambekov knew of the charges against him, he could not have known of the nature of the evidence relied upon.
Further interviews with Russian-speaking employees cast doubt on the assertions about Rustambekov’s conduct. The firm then obtained CCTV footage from the Hilton which showed up discrepancies in Colleague 1’s account. These discrepancies were not put to her in interview by the partner handling the investigation: Judge Anthony said this was ‘entirely odd’ and a missed opportunity to test the evidence.
The judge described Colleague 1’s version of events as ‘wholly unsupported by the CCTV footage description and wholly incredible’. She lied to protect her own interests and her reputation after being seen exiting the toilet with Rustambekov.
There had been a further allegation that the solicitor had acted inappropriately toward a second colleague (Colleague 2) at a work party by placing his arm around her waist and waiting for her outside a toilet. The tribunal heard that Colleague 2 had made no formal complaint and that during initial investigations, she did not feel he had overstepped the mark of made her feel uncomfortable.
The judge found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that Rustambekov did have his arm around Colleague 2, but this was not worthy of dismissal.
A separate hearing will be held on the issue of remedy.
