‘We will take the time to reflect,’ says firm
An employment judge has criticised the City law firm Fieldfisher for its handling of sexual misconduct allegations against one of its associates, which ultimately led to his unfair dismissal.
Djamshid Rustambekov, a former senior associate in the firm’s dispute resolution team, was dismissed in November 2023 following allegations of inappropriate behaviour and sexual misconduct raised by two female colleagues.
The first woman, referred to as ‘Colleague 1’ in the ruling, alleged that in January last year, Rustambekov harassed her by repeatedly urging her to cancel her Uber and return with him to the office after a party organised by another Fieldfisher employee.
In July 2023, during a work party at a bar in the Hilton Hotel near Tower Bridge, the second woman — referred to as ‘Colleague 2’ — alleged that Rustambekov followed her to the toilet, put his arm around her waist, and waited for her outside.
Colleague 1 also alleged a more serious incident during the same party, reporting that Rustambekov waited for her outside the toilets and, when she exited, he “grabbed her and pulled her” into a nearby disabled toilet, locking the door.
She described how, as she tried to reach for the lock to leave, Rustambekov “pinned her against the wall and started to kiss her,” then attempted to “move his hand under her skirt” while she tried to stop him.
Colleague 1 subsequently filed a complaint with the firm, prompting an investigation by an HR manager who recommended disciplinary action against Rustambekov.
At the disciplinary hearing, conducted by one of the firm’s partners, Rustambekov denied the allegations. He explained that Colleague 1 had confided in him about her feelings for another colleague, and he had “invited” her into the accessible toilet to talk further.
Rustambekov mentioned that Colleague 2 had stated he “did not cross the line” and said he did not recall touching her. However, he acknowledged that, if he had touched her, it would have been “inappropriate” to do so.
Rustambekov was ultimately dismissed from the firm after an unsuccessful appeal and later took the matter to an employment tribunal.
Details of the subsequent tribunal, made public this week, reveal that an employment judge was particularly critical of Fieldfisher’s handling of the investigation and disciplinary process, ultimately concluding that Rustambekov was unfairly dismissed.
Employment Judge Anthony raised concerns that Rustambekov was not provided with copies of the interview transcripts during the investigation and noted that some evidence from those interviews was “inaccurately transposed” into the investigation report.
The Hilton Hotel also provided a written description of the CCTV footage covering the accessible toilet, which states: “According to CCTV it seems consensual from both sides. Female A initiates a hug, Male A honours this. They are hugging for quite a while then start kissing and Male A gently directs towards the disabled toilet while hugging. Female A does not resist, no force was used at all.”
Despite the inconsistencies, the judge found it “entirely odd” that the firm’s investigative partner chose to question only Rustambekov about the description of the CCTV footage and did not question Colleague 1.
The Hilton Hotel would only release the full footage if both parties consented, but Colleague 1 declined after receiving legal advice. She “questioned the value” of reviewing the CCTV, noting that a description had already been provided by the venue and that, in any case, the footage would not show what occurred inside the accessible toilet.
The investigative partner told the tribunal that she concluded Colleague 1 had given “false” evidence regarding the events immediately before entering the accessible toilet, though she did not believe it was done deliberately.
“I find there is no other way to put this. Colleague 1’s version of events immediately before the accessible toilet incident is wholly unsupported by the CCTV footage description and wholly incredible,” the judge said. “However, the issue is whether she deliberately gave false evidence. Having given careful consideration to all of the documentary and oral evidence, I can find no basis to underpin [the partner’s] reasoning that Colleague 1 did not deliberately give false evidence.”
This, the judge added, “severely damages her credibility as a witness of fact”.
In explaining the firm’s decision to dismiss Rustambekov, the partner stated that she had reviewed WhatsApp messages between him and Colleague 1, which in her view provided “clear contemporaneous evidence” supporting the January allegations, as well as evidence supporting the claims of his unwanted attention toward Colleague 2.
However, Rustambekov told the tribunal that the letter informing him of the investigation’s outcome was the first time he had been made aware of the WhatsApp messages, and he refuted the claim that they demonstrated an “underlying sexual motive”.
The tribunal judge criticised the firm for not presenting this evidence to Rustambekov before reaching its decision.
“Having considered all of the evidence, I find that the general evidence is wholly insufficient to counteract ‘the negative pull’ of Colleague 1’s lies,” the judge said. “This is because the general evidence indicates that the claimant’s behaviour was not considered inappropriate by many other colleagues. I conclude that the negative pull of Colleague 1’s lies is such that her allegation that the claimant harassed her in January 2023 is wholly undermined.”
Judge Anthony went on to say that Fieldfisher had “failed to follow a reasonably fair procedure” for several reasons, including that, although the claimant was aware of the allegations against him, the only information he had for the disciplinary meeting was the firm’s report.
The judge also took issue with the firm’s failure to give adequate weight to to “the material discrepancies” in Colleague 1’s evidence against the CCTV footage description and “evidence of flirting” between Colleague 1 and the claimant.
The judge further found that the firm’s position — that Rustambekov’s actions constituted two serious acts of misconduct over six months — was “not within the band of reasonable responses,” noting that the firm had not spoken to Rustambekov immediately or in the period following the January 2023 allegation to inform him that his behaviour was unacceptable.
Regarding Colleague 2, the judge noted that she had not made a formal complaint and had indicated that she did not feel Rustambekov had overstepped any boundaries or made her uncomfortable. Although the judge found “sufficient evidence” suggesting that Rustambekov had placed his arm around her, this alone did not warrant dismissal.
Judge Anthony upheld the claim for unfair dismissal, with a remedy hearing to follow.
A spokesperson for Fieldfisher said:
“We are disappointed by the Employment Tribunal’s ruling. While we do not agree with the findings, we will take the time to reflect on the judgment and consider our next steps. We do not tolerate inappropriate behaviour at Fieldfisher. We stand firmly by our decision to have taken decisive action against it in this instance and will continue to do so going forward. Still, in light of the ruling, we will be reviewing our internal disciplinary procedures to ensure that our response to instances of inappropriate behaviour is thorough and robust.”
