A senior lawyer accused of sexual assault has won his claim for unfair dismissal after a judge ruled that CCTV footage showed her colleague misrepresented her behaviour, an employment tribunal 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 London’s Savage Garden rooftop bar.

Rustambekov was fired by the firm on November 6, 2023 because it found that in January 2023 he sexually harassed a female colleague, 1, repeatedly inviting her to cancel her Uber and return to the office with him following a party organized by another employee. . And on 20 July 2023, he acted inappropriately towards Colleague 2 and Colleague 1 at a work party, following them into the toilets and sexually harassing them.

But CCTV showed the encounter between the pair was “consensual”, the central London court heard.

Labor judge Farin Anthony found flaws in Fieldfisher’s investigative report. In particular, the witness statements did not support the findings of the investigation; a key witness did not say he saw Rustambekov invite colleague 1 and colleague 2 to go to the toilet to have sex, as the inquest claimed.

Rustambekov, who worked in Fieldfisher’s dispute resolution department, was perceived to be often involved in “flirtatious shenanigans”. A colleague said: “He’s very playful and likes to present himself as a ‘ladies’ man’. If there is a photobooth (sic), (plaintiff) would like to be in a picture with him in the middle and the ladies on either side.”

Eyewitnesses said that social female colleagues happily joined in games like 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 grabbed the wall. I kept trying to get to the lock and he pushed me away from it. He kissed me and I didn’t want it to happen. She tried to move her hand under her skirt. I was trying to get away. I don’t know how long I was there but Jas (another colleague) noticed I was missing and I heard her call me out. I said, “Jas knows I’m here, unlock the door. He did it. Jas saw that I was upset and so we went home…”

Earlier, a witness said, colleague 2 had left to go to the toilet and “I noticed (the complainant) followed her and put his arm around her. I went after both of them and went to the toilet and checked that she was okay. I told her I noticed (the complainant) put his arm round you – she said she did, but “I told her to move away.”

The investigation reached its conclusions regarding these events on August 1.

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

At a disciplinary hearing on August 16, Rustambekov denied interpretations of the allegations against him and asked whether CCTV footage had been requested. He specifically denied that he pinned colleague 1 against the wall, kissed her and put his hand up her skirt. He said Colleague 1’s account was “complete fiction”.

CCTV evidence

On 10 September, Hilton provided the defendant with a written description of the CCTV footage. Hilton’s representative said: “According to the CCTV (the toilet incident) it appears to be consensual on both sides. Woman A initiates a hug, Man A honors it. They hug quite a bit, then start kissing, and Man A makes his way slightly towards the disabled toilet as they hug. Woman A does not resist, no force was used at all.”

Describing the scene after the pair left the toilet, Hilton’s rep said: ‘Woman A smiling, Woman B looking surprised, Man A smiling. Everyone is talking in a normal way, there was no fight. None of them are frustrated or
disturbed.”

On September 18, Mr. Rustambekov filed a complaint, saying that “the charges brought against him are very serious and may have serious consequences for him, not limited to the loss of a job, his license to practice law, his reputation, but and the negative effects on his family. and health.”

Mr. Rustambekov was dismissed in November despite deficiencies in the evidence against him; and his appeal was dismissed in February 2024.

However, in court, the judge said Colleague 1’s version of events immediately prior to the accessible toilet incident was “deliberately false” and “completely unsupported by the description of the CCTV footage and wholly unbelievable”.

The judge said: “The lie could only be to protect her own interests and her reputation, particularly as (another colleague) saw her leaving the accessible toilet with the applicant.”

Accordingly, Justice Anthony said, the defendant – Fieldfisher – “did not act reasonably in treating the plaintiff’s reason for dismissal as sufficient. I find there were alternatives to dismissal. I find that the claimant’s claim for unfair dismissal accordingly has merit and succeeds.”

Compensation will be determined at a later date.

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

“We do not tolerate inappropriate behavior at Fieldfisher. We strongly stand by our decision to have taken decisive action against her in this case and will continue to do so going forward. However, in light of the decision, we will review our internal disciplinary procedures to ensure that our response to cases of misconduct is thorough and robust.”

Professional commentary

Responding to the judge’s ruling, Matt Dean, founder of work culture and behavior specialist Byrne Dean, said the case was unusual because “people tend not to make allegations out of the blue”.

Dean criticized Fieldfisher’s internal investigation: “The employer here was criticized for some basic errors in the investigation and disciplinary process, all of which could have been avoided if the complainant, the subject and all relevant witnesses had been properly and fully interviewed by someone whom you can trust as an independent.

“Sexual misconduct investigation is skilled and difficult work and should be treated as one.”

He added that the case is particularly interesting given a new obligation for employers to proactively prevent sexual harassment from taking place. He said: “It’s landing in the workplace at a time when many of the men we speak to every day are expressing fear for their own positions – asking how they can protect themselves in this new environment.”

The latest HR jobs for Personal Today

Search for more HR jobs