Tribunal: Claimant’s case overlooked his own behaviour
A London law firm expelled a partner because of inappropriate relationships with two junior lawyers and not because of discrimination, an employment tribunal has ruled.
Judge Emma Webster found no evidence to support Kami Naghdi’s allegations of a discriminatory scheme against him by senior partners at Clintons, “whether that be professionally, financially or reputationally”.
She said Mr Naghdi, who joined in 2014 to head Clintons’ film and TV practice and was expelled in 2023, “remains angered and hurt by such a dramatic change to his life” and had reinterpreted various incidents during his time there as a result.
But that did not mean he was correct “nor that he believed it to be correct at the time”.
In a 107-page ruling, Judge Webster, who sits in London Central Employment Tribunal, held that his narrative “overlooks some fundamental factors which render such a scheme highly improbable”.
This included that, had the firm wanted to terminate his partnership, “there were easier, less risky ways to do so, particularly if it had been planned or anticipated across nine years as he now alleges.
“It therefore seems unlikely that they would have chosen to do it in such a haphazard, emotional and difficult way.
“Secondly, the very people who asked the claimant to join the partnership and ultimately put him at the top of the equity share, are the people he says wanted him to leave or be suppressed in his career throughout.”
His argument that the equity partners did not want him to succeed “entirely overlooks many factors”, not least the financial benefit that Mr Naghdi brought to them.
Judge Webster added: “The entirety of the claimant’s case overlooks his own behaviour and the impact that had on his colleagues.
“He cannot accept that his intimate relationship with a junior member of staff [called RE in the ruling], and the way that he handled that situation, had the very real impact that it did. To try and minimise that situation or its impact appears, at best, naïve.”
Mr Naghdi has applied to appeal to the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
Described as a “brown-skinned, Iranian, Christian person”, he claimed direct discrimination and harassment on grounds of race and religion or belief, as well as victimisation and whistleblowing detriment.
The judge said much of the non-practising barrister’s case was that he had been treated less favourably because he was not Jewish.
But she found that, while until about 1990 Clintons “could be described as a ‘Jewish firm’”, it had not been one since. At the point Mr Naghdi left, only three out of 17 equity partners were Jewish and religion was not relevant to the firm’s culture.
Mr Naghdi’s religion was also not something that the other partners “thought about or considered in their dealings with him”.
In spring 2023, rumours of a relationship between Mr Naghdi and RE, who was in his team and reported to him, began to circulate and he then confirmed it to CEO Andrew Myers, saying his marriage was breaking down.
Mr Myers asked the firm’s head of employment to put together a protocol to govern the situation to ensure that “both sides were protected from allegations of bias and favouritism”.
Judge Webster found that Mr Naghdi – whose agreement to the protocol was “grudging” – “embarked upon this relationship without regard to the professional environment or its possible impact on colleagues or the firm more widely”.
By the time the protocol was finalised, however, what was said to have been a seven-week relationship had finished, with Mr Naghdi saying he wanted to make his marriage work.
However, there were then instances of him breaching the protocol, in particular by trying to persuade his partners to improve RE’s package to stop her leaving.
It then emerged that Mr Naghdi had had a sexual relationship in the past with a former associate. He did not confirm this but the tribunal found he did not deny it when it was put to him several times.
The other equity partners decided first to suspend and then expel him, without notifying him of their meetings or giving him a chance to put his case to them.
Judge Webster said the decision was influenced by them being told he had the nickname of ‘Palmy Kami’ at a previous job and had propositioned another junior lawyer at Clintons too.
He subsequently denied this and the judge did not make findings on the truth of either. But she said they were not “artificially created” so that they could be used to remove him.
At the meeting, “many people had significant misgivings” about expelling Mr Naghdi but eventually there was a unanimous vote in favour. This had nothing to do with his race or religion, the judge found.
The tribunal recorded that Mr Naghdi was paid the first tranche of his current account, £438,360, as required by the LLP agreement, but not the second because the firm discovered that he had actually been in a relationship with RE for far longer than he had admitted to.
It invoked the forfeiture and set-off rights under the agreement as a result.
Judge Webster said the evidence showed “a relationship that went beyond a professional relationship between a senior equity partner and a junior employee from early on in RE’s employment with Clintons and well before the claimant told Mr Myers about it”.
She stressed that “inappropriate does not have to mean that they were having a sexual relationship. All of the messages that I was taken to demonstrate a lack of what could objectively be considered professional boundaries… from December 2021”.
Judge Webster concluded that the partners Mr Naghdi accused of scheming against him were actually the ones who valued him “most highly and who would have tried harder to keep him within the LLP had it not been for other colleagues who had more significant concerns about his behaviour regarding RE and other junior members of staff”.
In a statement, Clintons said: “We welcome the tribunal’s decision to dismiss all claims of discrimination and victimisation. The tribunal found that the firm did not discriminate against or victimise the claimant.
“The serious allegations made against us do not reflect the culture or values of the firm, and we are pleased this was recognised by the tribunal. We have always been confident in our position and remain committed to maintaining a fair, inclusive and supportive workplace for all our people.”
We have approached Mr Naghdi for comment.
Leave a Comment