An employment tribunal has ruled that a prominent City law firm unjustly dismissed a senior associate for alleged sexual misconduct, following a flawed investigation and disciplinary process.
The tribunal examined two primary allegations leading to the dismissal of Djamshid Rustambekov, a senior associate in the dispute resolution team at the firm. The first incident occurred in January 2023, where he allegedly harassed a colleague by persuading her to cancel her Uber and accompany him back to the office after a party. The second involved inappropriate conduct towards another colleague at a subsequent work event in July 2023 at the Savage Garden rooftop bar.
However, the most serious accusation centred around claims of sexual assault by ‘Colleague 1’ during the July event. She accused Mr Rustambekov of forcibly pulling her into a disabled toilet, where he allegedly tried to kiss her and engage in further unwanted advances. Crucially, CCTV evidence provided a different perspective, showing no signs of force and suggesting the encounter may have been consensual. Despite this evidence, the firm’s investigation leaned heavily on Colleague 1’s allegations without sufficiently challenging their credibility.
The tribunal criticised the employer’s procedural oversights, noting that key evidence from interviews was inaccurately portrayed in reports, and the accused was not privy to significant evidence until after decisions had been made against him. The tribunal underscored the importance of transparency and accuracy in disciplinary procedures, highlighting the failure to reconcile discrepancies between witness statements and CCTV records.
Further complicating the case, it emerged that Colleague 1 had presented conflicting accounts of the incident, which the tribunal found ‘wholly unsupported’ by the CCTV description. Despite acknowledging these contradictions, the firm did not adequately re-evaluate the accusations against Mr Rustambekov. Colleague 1’s refusal to consent to the release of actual CCTV footage further undermined her credibility.
The tribunal ultimately determined that Fieldfisher had not conducted a fair process and lacked reasonable grounds to believe in Mr Rustambekov’s misconduct. This decision was compounded by the tribunal’s finding that the firm neglected to address the alleged incidents promptly and failed to inform Mr Rustambekov of unacceptable behaviour before taking severe disciplinary action.
In their ruling, the tribunal concluded that Mr Rustambekov’s dismissal was unjustified, and a remedy hearing is pending. The firm expressed disappointment with the tribunal’s decision and intends to review its internal disciplinary procedures in light of the ruling.
The tribunal’s decision underscores the importance of robust investigative procedures in employment matters, highlighting the need for fairness and accuracy when dealing with serious allegations.
