An experienced lawyer who was accused of sexual abuse has won the unfair dismissal case, after a judge found that a female colleague misrepresented her behaviour.
Mr Rustambekov, a lawyer with the London-based firm Fieldfisher, was accused of sexually abusing a colleague during a party after work at Savage Garden Rooftop Bar in London.
Rustambekov, an employee of the company, was fired on 6 November 2023 after it was found that he sexually harassed a woman in January 2023 by inviting her repeatedly to cancel her Uber ride and return to the office with him following a party organized by another employee. On 20 July 2023 he acted inappropriately towards Colleagues 2 and 1 by sexually harassing and following them into the bathroom at a party organised by another employee.
The central London court heard that CCTV footage showed the two had met “consensually”.
Farin Anthony, an employment judge, found faults in Fieldfisher’s investigation report. Witness statements, in particular, did not support the conclusions of the investigation. A key witness did say that she did not witness Rustambekov inviting Colleague 1 to the bathroom to have sex with Colleague 2.
Rustambekov was a dispute resolution specialist at Fieldfisher. He was often seen engaging in “flirtatious teasing”. He is playful and presents himself as a “ladies man”. If there was a photo booth (sic), [the claimant] wanted to be in one with him at the center and two ladies on either side.
During social events, socially feminine colleagues were seen playing games like Snog, Marry and Avoid.
Colleague 1 said that Rustambekov “grabbed and took me to the disabled cubicle, and locked the doors.” He pinned me to the wall when I reached for the lock. He pushed me back from the lock as I tried to reach it. He kissed and I did not want that to happen. He moved his hand underneath my skirt. I was trying my best to get away. Jas (another colleague) noticed that I was missing, and I heard her calling me outside. Jas is aware that I am in this room, so I told her to unlock the door. He did. Jas saw that I was upset, so we went back home …”
A witness said that earlier in the evening Colleague 2 left to go to a toilet. “I noticed (the claimant) followed her and put her arm around him. I checked on her and then went to the bathroom after them. I told her I saw [the claimant] put his arm around your shoulder – she confirmed that he had, but said “I told him f off.”
On 1 August, the investigation concluded that these events were not a crime.
Rustambekov was informed by his employer that disciplinary action would be taken against him for “unwanted sexual conduct including inappropriate touching and kissing (prior and including 20 July 2023) as well as intimidation and intrusive behavior (locking a colleague in an accessible toilet).
Rustambekov, at a hearing for disciplinary action on the 16th of August, denied the interpretations made about him and asked if CCTV footage was requested. He denied kissing Colleague 1, pinning her to the wall and putting his hands up her skirt. He called Colleague 1’s story “complete fiction”.
CCTV Evidence
The Hilton sent a written report of the CCTV footage to the respondent on 10 September. The Hilton representative said: “Accordingly to CCTV, it (the toilet incident) seems consensual on both sides. Male A accepts the hug initiated by Female A. After a long time of hugging, Male A starts kissing. He gently points towards the disabled toilet as they hug. Female A did not resist. No force was used.
The Hilton representative described the scene that followed the two leaving the toilet: “Female B looking surprised, Male A smiles. No argument occurred. They are all talking in a normal way. They are not frustrated or annoyed.
distressed.”
On 18 September, Mr Rustambekov filed a complaint, stating that “the allegations presented against him are very serious and could have grave consequences not only for his job, license to practice law and reputation but also adverse effects on his health and family.”
In November, Mr Rustambekov’s dismissal was despite the fact that the evidence against him was flawed. His appeal was also dismissed in February of 2024.
The judge at the tribunal stated that Colleague 1’s version of the events just before the incident in the accessible toilet was “deliberately fabricated” and “wholly inconsistent with the CCTV footage description.”
The judge stated: “The lie was only to protect her interests and reputation, especially since [another colleague] witnessed her exiting together with the claimant the accessible toilet.”
In this regard, Judge Anthony stated that the respondent, Fieldfisher, “did not act reasonable in treating the dismissal of the claimant as sufficient.” I found that there were other alternatives to dismissal. “I find that the claimant’s complaint for unfair dismissal was well-founded and successful.”
Compensation will be decided at a future date.
Fieldfisher issued a statement saying: “We’re disappointed with the ruling of the Employment Tribunal. We do not agree with these findings but we will reflect on them and decide what to do next.
“We will not tolerate inappropriate behavior at Fieldfisher. We will continue to stand by our decision in this case to take decisive action and we are firmly committed to it. We will review our internal disciplinary procedure in light of this ruling to ensure our response to incidents of inappropriate behavior is thorough and robust.”
Professional Comment
Matt Dean, the founder of Byrne Dean’s work culture and behavior specialist, responded to the ruling by saying that the case was unique in the sense that “people don’t tend to make up allegations without any basis”.
Dean criticized Fieldfisher’s internal investigation. “The employer was criticised here for some basic mistakes in its investigation, and disciplinary processes, which all could have been prevented if the subject, complainant and all witnesses were properly and thoroughly interviewed by someone who they trusted to be independent.
Investigating sexual misconduct requires a high level of skill and difficulty and should be treated accordingly.
He said that this case was especially interesting because of the newly mandated duty for employers to prevent sexual harassment. He added: “It comes at a time where many men are asking for advice on how to protect themselves from this new environment.
Subscribe to our weekly HR news and guidance
Every Wednesday, receive the Personnel Today Direct newsletter.
Personnel Today has the latest HR job openings.
Browse Human Resources Jobs
