Lawyer wrongfully dismissed over allegations of sexual harassment

A senior lawyer accused of sexual assault has won his unfair dismissal application after a judge ruled that CCTV footage showed his female colleague had misrepresented his behaviour, an employment tribunal has heard.

Mr Rustambekov was a lawyer at the London firm Fieldfisher when he was accused of sexually assaulting a colleague at an after-work party at the rooftop bar of Savage Garden in London.

Rustambekov was fired by the company on November 6, 2023 after it discovered that he had sexually harassed a woman, Coworker 1, in January 2023 by repeatedly inviting her to cancel her Uber and return to the office with him after a party organized by another employee. . And on July 20, 2023, he acted inappropriately towards Colleague 2 and Colleague 1 at a work party by following them into the toilets and sexually intimidating them.

But CCTV footage showed the meeting between the pair had been ‘consensual’, the tribunal in central London heard.

Employment judge Farin Anthony found flaws in Fieldfisher’s investigation report. In particular, witness statements did not support the investigation’s conclusions; a key witness did not say that she had witnessed Rustambekov inviting colleague 1 and colleague 2 to go to the toilet to have sex, as the investigation showed.

Rustambekov, who worked in Fieldfisher’s dispute resolution department, was seen as often engaging in “flirty banter”. A colleague says: “He is very playful and likes to present himself as a ‘ladies man’. If there is a (sic) photo booth, (the plaintiff) would like to be in the photo with him in the middle and the ladies on either side.

Witnesses said that sociable female colleagues liked to participate in games such as Snog, Marry, Avoid at social events.

Colleague 1 claimed that in the July incident, Rustambekov “grabbed me and took me to the disabled cabin and locked the door. I went for the lock and he pressed me against the wall. I kept trying to reach the lock and he pushed me away from it. He kissed me and I didn’t want it to happen. He tried to move his hand under my skirt. I tried to leave. I don’t know how long I was there, but Jas (another colleague) noticed I was missing and I could hear her calling for me outside. I said, ‘Jas knows I’m here, open the door. He did. Jas saw that I was upset so we went home…’

Earlier in the evening, according to a witness, colleague 2 had left to go to the toilet and “I noticed that (plaintiff) walked behind her and put his arm around her. I followed them both, went to the toilet and checked if everything was okay. I said I noticed (the plaintiff) had put his arm around you – she said he did, but ‘I told him to go away.’

The investigation reached conclusions about these events on August 1.

Rustambekov returned from leave on August 7, 2023 and was informed that his employer had decided to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him alleging “unwanted conduct of a sexual nature, including inappropriate touching, kissing, persistent sexual advances and flirting (prior to and including on July 20, 2023) and intimidating and intrusive behavior (locking a female colleague in the accessible toilet).”

At a disciplinary hearing on August 16, Rustambekov denied the interpretations of the charges against him and asked whether CCTV footage had been requested. He specifically denied pinning Colleague 1 to the wall, kissing her and putting his hand up her skirt. He said Colleague 1’s story was “complete fiction.”

CCTV evidence

On September 10, the Hilton provided the defendant with a written description of the camera images. The Hilton representative stated: “According to CCTV footage, it (the toilet incident) appears to be a consensus from both sides. Woman A initiates a hug, Man A respects this. They cuddle for a while and then start kissing and Male A gently points to the disabled toilet as he cuddles. Woman A does not resist, no violence was used at all.”

Describing the scene after the couple left the restroom, the Hilton representative said: “Woman A laughs, woman B looks surprised, man A laughs. They all talk in a normal way, no fight took place. None of them are frustrated or
sad.”

On September 18, Mr. Rustambekov filed a complaint, saying that the “allegations leveled against him were very serious and could have serious consequences for him, not limited to the loss of a job, license to practice law, reputation , but also harmful consequences for his family. and health.”

Mr. Rustambekov was fired in November despite the flaws in the evidence against him; and his appeal was rejected in February 2024.

However, at the tribunal the judge said that Colleague 1’s version of events just before the accessible toilet incident was “deliberately false” and “completely unsupported by the description of the CCTV footage and completely unbelievable.”

The judge said: “The lie could only have been intended to protect her own interests and especially as her reputation (another colleague) had witnessed her leaving the accessible toilet with the claimant.”

Accordingly, Judge Anthony said, the defendant – Fieldfisher – “did not act reasonably in considering the reason for the claimant’s dismissal to be sufficient. I think there were alternatives to dismissal. I therefore consider the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal to be well-founded and successful.”

The compensation will be determined later.

In a statement, Fieldfisher said: “We are disappointed by the employment tribunal ruling. While we disagree with the findings, we will take time to reflect on the judgment and consider our next steps.

“We will not tolerate inappropriate behavior at Fieldfisher. We firmly stand by our decision to take decisive action in this case and will continue to do so in the future. However, in light of the ruling, we will review our internal disciplinary procedures to ensure that our response to instances of inappropriate behavior is thorough and robust.”

Professional commentary

Commenting on the judge’s ruling, Matt Dean, founder of workplace culture and behavior specialist Byrne Dean, said the case was unusual because “people tend not to make up accusations out of thin air”.

Dean was critical of Fieldfisher’s internal investigation: “The employer was criticized here for a number of fundamental failures in its investigation and disciplinary process, all of which could have been avoided if the complainant, the individual concerned and all relevant witnesses had been properly and fully cross-examined by someone they had heard. trusted as well as independent.

“Investigating sexual misconduct is a skilled and difficult task and should be treated as one.”

He added that the case was particularly interesting in light of the new obligation for employers to proactively prevent sexual harassment of taking place. He said: “It hits the workplace at a time when many of the men we talk to every day are expressing fear for their own position – and asking us how they can protect themselves in this new environment.”

Latest HR vacancies on Personnel Today

View more HR jobs