A former equity partner who was removed from his firm over his relationship with and subsequent behaviour towards a junior colleague has lost his employment tribunal claim against a West End firm.
Employment Judge Webster, sitting at the London Central tribunal, found that barrister Kamir Naghdi’s claims for direct discrimination, harassment, victimisation and whistleblowing detriment against Clintons Legal and various partners were not upheld. The decision, published today, following a three-week hearing at the end of last year.
The tribunal heard that Naghdi, described as an ‘excellent lawyer’ and equity principal who had worked for Clintons for nine years, had been expelled from the partnership in 2023. The reason given was that he had damaged or risked damaging the firm because he had had relationships with junior members of staff and his subsequent behaviour surrounding one of those relationships meant that the principals lost trust and confidence in him.
Naghdi said the relationship was sanctioned by the firm and by several colleagues and that he had done nothing wrong. He insisted that the termination was discriminatory and retaliatory, coming against a wider ‘scheme’ against him based on his Iranian heritage and Christian religion.
In her ruling, the judge found there was ‘no evidence whatsoever’ of a scheme by anyone at the firm to supress Naghdi professionally, financially or reputationally. Instead, she concluded that the firm and its leaders ‘clearly evidenced that they valued the claimant, that they promoted him and that they financially rewarded him accordingly’. She rejected Naghdi's claims that the conduct of colleagues towards him amounted to unlawful discrimination or harassment.
In 2023, Naghdi was in a relationship with a junior lawyer in the firm, referred to as RE, for whom he was her line manager. The judge accepted that when the matter was raised by a senior colleague, they had told Naghdi it could be ‘problematic’ for the firm, while Naghdi saw this interest as an ‘intrusion and unnecessary’.
Naghdi maintained he had done nothing wrong as there were no rules against workplace relationships and that it had been officially sanctioned by the firm. He characterised this apparent approval as a ‘trap’ set by the firm with the aim of using it to dismiss him.
The judge said: ‘I conclude that he embarked upon this relationship without regard to the professional environment or its possible impact on colleagues or the firm more widely and he would have done so regardless of whether it was sanctioned or not.’
When the relationship broke down, the firm’s head of employment met RE and formed the view that Naghdi’s behaviour had been coercive and controlling. The decision was taken to terminate Naghdi’s membership following a unanimous vote by principals. The judge found that the respondents, collectively and individually, decided to expel him because of his behaviour and 'were not in any way influenced by his race or religion.
