In the case of Mr D R v Fieldfisher LLP a tribunal in central London reviewed allegations against Mr. DR, who was described as enjoying a reputation as a “ladies’ man” at work, engaging in “flirtatious banter,” and participating in jokingly inappropriate games like Snog, Marry, Avoid. According to testimony, his comments and behaviour were often dismissed as non-serious, with no widespread perception of harassment.
One complainant, identified as “Colleague One,” accused Mr. DR of molestation during a work outing in 2023 at the Savage Garden rooftop bar in London. She alleged that he made persistent advances, culminating in an incident where he forcibly kissed her and attempted to touch her in a disabled toilet. According to her account, she resisted and was eventually aided by another colleague who called out for her. She also claimed that six months earlier, he pressured her to cancel her ride home to return to the office with him.
CCTV footage from the bar complicated the narrative. A September 2023 report from the venue stated the footage showed a consensual interaction between Mr. DR and the complainant, with her initiating a hug and both moving together willingly to the toilet. No force was observed in the footage.
Despite the CCTV evidence undermining the complainant’s account, Mr. DR was dismissed for gross misconduct in November 2023. Fieldfisher concluded he had pestered the complainant. However, Employment Judge Farin Anthony criticised the firm for not reassessing the complainant’s credibility after the footage emerged, suggesting her account was “wholly incredible” and appeared to protect her reputation after being seen exiting the toilet with him.
Judge Anthony dismissed claims of pestering, noting Mr. DR had only offered the complainant a lift home, and found the alleged inappropriate touching involved a mere hand on a shoulder. The tribunal will determine compensation at a later date.
This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases are reported, the information does not set out all of the facts, the legal arguments presented and the judgments made in every aspect of the case. Employment law is subject to constant change either by statute or by interpretation by the courts. While every care has been taken in compiling this information, we cannot be held responsible for any errors or omissions. Specialist legal advice must be taken on any legal issues that may arise before embarking upon any formal course of action.
