Latest news with #ColleagueA
The Independent
09-07-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Married banker sacked over affair with his co-worker sues for sex discrimination
A married banker who was sacked over an affair with a junior colleague has sued his employer for discriminating against him 'because he was more senior and male', a tribunal has heard. Stanislav Stepchuk was dismissed for misconduct after a disciplinary procedure found that he had acted inappropriately in pursuing sexual relations with the co-worker, an employment judge was told. Stepchuk ended his affair with the junior colleague – referred to as Colleague A – in the summer of 2023 after learning that his wife was pregnant, the London Central Employment Tribunal heard during a preliminary hearing last month. Stepchuk is now suing his employer for direct sex and age discrimination, sex-related harassment, and unfair dismissal. 'The claimant says the respondent discriminated against him (and that) its approach was 'tainted' by discriminatory assumptions that because he was more senior and male, he was a perpetrator of sexual misconduct,' employment judge Christabel McCooey wrote in her reserved judgment published on Monday. Stepchuk worked at Merrill Lynch, an American wealth management firm, from March 2018 until the termination of his employment in January 2024, the judge was told. In January 2023, Stepchuk, then a director at the firm, and Colleague A began exchanging WhatsApp messages, with Stepchuk sending her an intimate photograph of himself four days into their exchange, the tribunal heard. In those messages, Colleague A disclosed that she was a virgin and 'lacked any sexual experience', the judge was told. The pair were reportedly intimate on two occasions before Stepchuk ended their relationship. This caused Colleague A to respond with 'hostility and taunts', Stepchuk claimed before the tribunal. He further claimed Colleague A threatened him on several occasions 'by suggesting that a disclosure of their relationship to (his employer) would have consequences for his wife, the continuation of her pregnancy, his child, and his parents and that his life may be in danger.' Colleague A raised a formal grievance against Stepchuk on August 8 2023, in which she claimed he had 'sexually harassed her and threatened her when she said she would be informing HR about her concerns,' the tribunal heard. Although Stepchuk was dismissed for misconduct, the employer did not uphold Colleague A's complaint of sexual harassment, finding the relationship had been consensual, the tribunal heard. During the hearing on June 3, Stepchuk asked for his colleague's name to be made public but requested for his own identity to be protected, telling the tribunal that he became 'particularly upset in the asymmetry' that Colleague A would be granted anonymity but he and his family would not. His request was however dismissed, with Judge McCooey telling the hearing: 'The claimant's opposition has the flavour of wanting to punish Colleague A for her alleged behaviour by 'naming and shaming' her. 'I consider it a significant factor that, unlike Colleague A, the claimant has chosen to bring these proceedings. 'It is not unreasonable to regard the person who initiates proceedings as having accepted the normal incidence of the public nature of court proceedings.' The case is scheduled for another hearing on July 16.
Telegraph
08-07-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
Married banker sacked over affair with colleague sues for sex discrimination
A married City banker sued for sex discrimination after he was sacked over his affair with a junior colleague. Stanislav Stepchuk, who was a director at American investment bank Merrill Lynch, was in a relationship with the woman for several months but broke it off when he learnt his pregnant wife was expecting. He sent an unsolicited explicit photo to the younger woman four days after they began messaging each other. He claims that after the breakup the junior colleague responded with 'hostility', 'taunts' and 'threats' that his life may be in danger. An internal disciplinary process found the father-of-two had actually been the one to threaten her and sacked him for 'acting inappropriately' by embarking on the affair. Mr Stepchuk is suing Merrill Lynch International for sex discrimination and harassment, age discrimination, and unfair dismissal. Details of the affair emerged during a preliminary hearing to determine if Mr Stepchuk or his junior colleague were entitled to anonymity. While he demanded that her identity be made public, he applied to have his name remain a secret to protect his family - a request that was denied by a judge. The tribunal, held in Central London, heard Mr Stepchuk became a director at the financial institution in March 2018. In January 2023 he began exchanging 'sexually explicit and highly personal' WhatsApp messages with a junior known only as Colleague A. In these messages, she told him she was a virgin who lacked sexual experience. Just four days into their communications he sent her an unsolicited 'intimate photograph' of himself. The tribunal heard that the pair were sexually intimate on two occasions. Mr Stepchuk was married at the time and tried to break things off in summer 2023 when he learnt that his wife was pregnant, the hearing was told. He alleges that at the start of August, Colleague A responded to his attempts to withdraw from the relationship with 'hostility, taunts and threats'. The banker told the tribunal that she suggested that if she disclosed the relationship to their employer it would have 'consequences' for his wife, her pregnancy, his child, and his parents and even put his life in danger. Merrill Lynch International say their HR team had spoken to Colleague A as early as March 2023 about sexual harassment by Mr Stepchuk. In August she raised a formal grievance alleging that she had been sexually harassed and that Mr Stepchuk had threatened her when she said she was going to HR. In January 2024 the banker was dismissed following a disciplinary procedure, which found he had 'acted inappropriately' in pursuing a sexual relationship with Colleague A, and had threatened her. However, they did not uphold the complaint of sexual harassment, finding the relationship had been consensual. At the tribunal, Mr Stepchuk claims that he was discriminated against by a failure to investigate his grievance and that their approach was 'tainted' by the assumption that he was the perpetrator as a more senior man. The bank says his dismissal was 'wholly proper'.
Daily Mail
08-07-2025
- Daily Mail
Top City banker who cheated on his pregnant wife with junior colleague sues for sex discrimination after being sacked over affair
A senior City banker who cheated on his pregnant wife with a junior colleague is suing for sex discrimination after he was sacked over the affair. Stanislav Stepchuk, a former director at American investment bank Merrill Lynch, sent an unsolicited 'intimate photograph' of himself to the younger woman just four days after they began messaging. He started exchanging 'sexually explicit and highly personal' WhatsApp texts with the woman, known as Colleague A, in January 2023, where she revealed to him she was a virgin who lacked sexual experience, an employment tribunal heard. The pair pursued a relationship for several months, and were sexually intimate on two occasions, before the banker tried to break things off in the summer of 2023 after learning his wife was pregnant, the hearing was told. Mr Stepchuk, who became a director at the financial institution in March 2018, alleges that at the beginning of August Colleague A had responded to his attempts to end the affair with 'hostility, taunts and threats'. She suggested that if she disclosed the relationship to their employer it would have 'consequences' for his wife, her pregnancy, his child, his parents and even put his life in danger, the banker told the tribunal. However, an internal disciplinary process found that the father of two had actually been the one to threaten her and sacked him for 'acting inappropriately' by embarking on the affair. Now, the City banker is suing Merrill Lynch International for sex discrimination and harassment, age discrimination, and unfair dismissal. Merrill Lynch International say their HR team had spoken to Colleague A as early as March 2023 about sexual harassment by Mr Stepchuk. In August she raised a formal grievance alleging she had been sexually harassed and that Mr Stepchuk had threatened her when she said she was going to HR. In January 2024 the banker was dismissed following a disciplinary procedure which found he had 'acted inappropriately' in pursuing a sexual relationship with Colleague A and had threatened her. However, they did not uphold the complaint of sexual harassment, finding the relationship had been consensual. At the tribunal Mr Stepchuk claims that he was discriminated against by a failure to investigate his grievance. He claimed their approach was 'tainted' by the assumption he was the perpetrator as a more senior man, however the bank said his dismissal was 'wholly proper'. Details of the affair emerged during a preliminary hearing to determine if Mr Stepchuk or his junior colleague were entitled to anonymity. While he demanded that her identity be made public, he applied to have his name remain a secret to protect his family - a request that was denied by a judge. In granting anonymity to Colleague A, Employment Judge Christabel McCooey found that her identity is 'irrelevant' to the dispute. She reasoned that the junior colleague had not been called as a witness by the bank, and further concluded that the nature messages entitling her to privacy. 'In particular, it mentions her virginity and lack of sexual experience which is of a highly personal and intimate nature. I ask whether she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in this context,' she said. 'I consider the expectation of privacy lower in an extra-marital affair at work, where the risk of discovery is acknowledged by [Mr Stepchuk] and Colleague A in the Whatsapp messages. 'However, as a third-party to these proceedings, I do not find it foreseeable that discussion of her sexual inexperience would be before a public employment tribunal.' However, EJ McCooey found that Mr Stepchuk could not be granted anonymity in largely because he had chosen to bring the proceedings and therefore accepted their 'public nature'. Mr Stepchuk did not make his application until he had seen Colleague A's suggestion that the impact on his family was not as 'pressing on his mind' as he claimed and that them finding out was a consequence of him starting the affair in the first place. 'Whilst I fully accept that the sexual information contained in the Whatsapp messages is highly sensitive and intimate, I am not persuaded that[Mr Stepchuk] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in a context where he chose to begin an extra-marital affair at work and chose to send intimate photos of himself, which were unsolicited, within four days of communicating with Colleague A,' EJ McCooey said. 'He, like her, acknowledges that the affair could become known. He also knew that his work policy discouraged relationships with more junior colleagues. 'Whilst I make no substantive findings about the relationship itself, it does seem at face value that the claimant took a risk by entering the extra marital affair, knowing that the messages could become known to his wife and colleagues. She continued: 'The impact of [his] affair on his sons' and their potential knowledge of its details is largely a consequence of the claimant's decision to engage in the affair, accepting the risks involved in that. 'I also consider again the late stage of [Mr Stepchuk's] application and find that, were the harm serious to the claimant's wife and sons, this would have been pressing on the claimant's mind and relief sought prior to seeing Colleague A's application five days ago, particularly in circumstances where [he] is assisted by very capable lawyers... 'I consider it a significant factor that, unlike Colleague A, [he] has chosen to bring these proceedings. 'It is not unreasonable to regard the person who initiates proceedings as having accepted the normal incidence of the public nature of court proceedings.'
