Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
IN THE EMPLOYEMNT TRIBUNAL
16 August 2017
CASE: 3200102/2015
BETWEEN
GEORGI MECHKAROV AND
CITIBANK, N.A.
Appellant Respondent
WITNESS STATEMENT (1,2) Georgi Mechkarov 16 August 2017
Table of Content
Paragraphs Background 1-2 Pre Termination** 3-58 Post-Employment 59-154 Motifs 155-157 *the Pre Termination claims were struck out without full trial and therefore not part of the full hearing
(1) This witness statement is drafted in the absence of any disclosure from Citi about the internal investigation, which they claimed for 2.5 years that was ‘irrelevant’ and have recently said that it was ‘privileged’. A disclosure hearing has been listed for 18 August 2017 (after the date of this witness statement) to elaborate on the Respondent’s claims of privilege. I reserve the right to amend my witness statement when the Tribunal orders Citi to disclose those reports or any of the other emails, documents and information that was requested but not provided by the Respondent.
(2) The bundle was prepared by the Respondent’s solicitors but I do not agree with its contents for a number of reasons, including the sequence of the documents, the excessive repetition and, most importantly, the fact that the bundle lacks vital documents and information such as full disclosure about the internal investigation of the Respondent following my complaint and a basic email search of the email accounts of the witnesses to the events. 0
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
Background
1. I joined Citigroup on 6 August 2006 as a Management Associate in their office in Sofia, Bulgaria. Throughout my career at Citi in Bulgaria, I was consistently regarded as a top performer, not only in the country but across the Central Eastern European (CEE) cluster of Citigroup: 1.1. In my first yearly performance assessment in 2007, I was rated as exceptional (top 5% performance in the CEE cluster). I was described by my manager as ‘an example’ who has ‘great potential’ and is ‘earmarked for management career’. (Trial Bundle 1, pages 251-252) In recognition of my team work abilities, I was awarded a ‘Colleague of the Year’ award in 2007. 1.2. In 2008, I was promoted to Relationship Manager and put in charge of, as my manager Chavdar Rissin puts it in his 2008 appraisal, ‘one of the most difficult client portfolios in Citi Bulgaria’. After managing to be the only client manager in the country who exceeded the budget despite the ongoing financial crisis, my manager once again rated me with 1 (top 5% in CEE) and described my track record as ‘outstanding’, praising me for demonstrating ‘rare maturity and professionalism’ for my age and experience (Trial Bundle 1, pages 256-257).
1.3. In 2009, on the basis of generated client revenue, I was recognized as ‘the strongest performer in the country this year’(Trial Bundle 1, page 261), having converted a number of new client relationships that have since then brought millions of dollars of stable and recurring revenue to the bank. I was described as ‘innovative, proactive and productive’, ‘excellent with clients’ and with ‘strong risk management culture’ (Trial Bundle 1, pages 260-261) having exceeded my client-revenue target despite the ongoing economic and financial crisis.
2. In 2010, a new rotational program was announced at Citigroup that was giving the opportunity to the best performers of the Corporate & Investment Banking department in Central and Eastern Europe to spend 6 months in the EMEA headquarters in London. After completing the required assessments and interviews, I was the first banker to be selected for the program starting on 1 July 2010 till December 2010. 2.1. In October 2010, there was an opening for a permanent position of a
Senior Associate in the EMEA Transaction Execution Group with manager Mathieu Gelis. I applied for the position and, given my stellar track record and positive first impressions to the team in London, I was offered to join on a permanent contract, starting in December, 2010.
1
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
2.2. Throughout my time in Citi in London, I maintained top performance
ratings. In 2011, on the basis of a performance appraisal committee of Managing Directors in Western Europe, I was selected as the #1 top performer in my class of senior associates in the Corporate & Investment bank in Western Europe.
2.3. I assumed the position of a Staffer of the EMEA TEG team from
September, 2011 till February, 2012 and was consistently among the most active members of the team in delivering trainings to the Analyst & Associate pools across EMEA.
2.4. In my 2011 assessment (Trial Bundle 1, page 265), my performance was
described as ‘fantastic’. I was reported to have ‘worked tirelessly’ and ‘led by example’.
2.5. In 2012 (Trial Bundle 1, page 268), the appraisal committee described my
performance as ‘excellent’, praising me as being ‘extremely dedicated’ and ‘very strong technically’. (Trial Bundle 1, page 267)
2.6. In an email sent to Catherine Pierre in January 2013, Christopher Blin
writes to recommend me for promotion stating that I was ‘autonomous, organised and very reliable.’ (Trial Bundle 2, page 353)
2.7. In January 2013, I was the only person in the team to be promoted to Vice
President.
Background: Summary of Pre Termination Claims* Housing Issues
3. Upon joining the EMEA TEG team in July, 2010, I was accommodated in a very small 1-bedroom apartment paid by Citibank for the duration of my 6-month rotation. Given that I have come to London with my wife and my then 3-year old son, I requested that I am placed in a bigger apartment that could accommodate my family. 4. After I raised the request with HR and my first manager at Citi London - Mathieu Gelis, Mathieu told me: ‘In Western Europe, analysts and associates rarely have children, therefore Citi cannot pay for a bigger apartment for you even though having a child at the age of 28 may be considered normal in Bulgaria.’ My request for more adequate housing was subsequently turned down by HR.
5. Another employee of the bank Amre Al-Nasri, who came to the EMEA TEG team for a similar 6-month secondment, was moved into a bigger apartment following identical complaints that his accommodation was inadequate (and despite the fact that he came to London on his own/without his family). 2
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
Working on Bond Transactions and Management Pressure in the Team (Trial Bundle 1, page 22)
6. In May, 2011 I raised a concern with the staffer of the team, Mia Montagna, that I was not working on sufficient number of bond transactions, which I considered to be more valuable from a developmental perspective.
7. After no action from the management, I raised the issue for a second time with the staffer, I was summoned to the office of Mathieu Gelis and was told: ‘You are not working on bond transactions because of the nature of your background – coming from a small office like the one in Bulgaria does not mean that you are sufficiently qualified to represent the bank with external law firms and bond issuers.’ 8. I was later told by the Staffer that the issue had been discussed and I would still not be able to work on important bond deals until I was at least ‘Vice President’, though there were more junior members of the team (including Analysts), who were undoubtedly less qualified than me and were nevertheless assigned on a great number of bond transactions.
9. My request to work on bond transaction was initially denied clearly because of my Eastern European origin and nationality, which has always been a problem for Mathieu Gelis. This is an act of discrimination because the other team members, who were given the opportunity to work on bond transactions, were: (i)
(ii)
less experienced than me (in terms of years of experience and quality of performance);
had significantly less experience than me in managing complex credit situations. Therefore, the only reason why I was refused access to bond execution was my Eastern European origin.
Loan Transfer Charge Idea (Trial Bundle 1, page 23)
10. On 18 August 2011, I came up with a complex but extremely efficient and theoretically sound idea of how to improve the ‘Loan Transfer Charge’ methodology, which was causing a great deal of consternation and mis-understanding among Corporate Bankers and Product Partners world-wide. I described my new idea in detail to my manager Mathieu Gelis, who said that the idea was ‘good’ and he would discuss it among other Managing Directors.
11. On 19 August, I went to my long-planned vacation and, when I returned in the beginning of September, I had to immediately assume the position of a Staffer given the large number of people, who had left the team or had gone to sick leave.
12. I was working for at least 15-16 hours a day, juggling various responsibilities among bonds, capital management, staffing duties and training new-comers who were 3
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
replacing those who had left. This was the reason why I did not have any time to follow up with Mathieu Gelis on my Loan Transfer Charge idea.
13. In October, Mathieu summoned the team to an extraordinary team meeting, in which he announced that the New York Capital Management team had made a decision to adopt a brand new ‘Loan Transfer Charge’ methodology. The methodology was described in detail and it was 90% similar to the idea that I had proposed only 2 months earlier. 14. I was very excited that my idea had been adopted globally and in a meeting asked Mathieu Gelis if I could work on the implementation project given that this was clearly my idea with only a small tweak. Mathieu Gelis then told me: ‘No! This was not your idea, yours was very different. This is all MD’s business and you should not be getting ahead of yourself!’ 15. A more junior member of the team (Brian Magos) was then assigned to work on the implementation (directly by Mathieu, circumventing my Staffer responsibilities).
16. My name had never been mentioned internally in relation to the ‘Loan Transfer Charge’ methodology, which is used to-date by Citi in over 100 countries world-wide.
Organisational Problems with the EMEA Transaction Execution Group (Trial Bundle 1, pages 23-24)
17. In the period 2010-2012, there were multiple internal complaints by a number of employees with regard to the aggressive and stressful management techniques of Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre. Please find below a summary of what I could remember being discussed, also in my capacity of a Staffer for a part of this period. 18. Victor Bekh , a Senior VP with the team and a banker with 10+ years of experience in Corporate Banking, Credit Risk Management and Capital Markets Origination, also an Ukrainian national, was harassed by Mathieu Gelis when they were working on a number of transactions in 2010-2011. 18.1. Mathieu’s behaviour toward Victor was extraordinarily aggressive and similar to Mathieu’s approach towards me. I have also heard Mathieu Gelis speak in a condescending manner toward Victor and making jokes about ‘the Banker from Ukraine’.
18.2. As a result of this harassment and bullying, Victor Bekh complained verbally to many people, including myself. He also developed depression and insomnia, which led him to taking prescribed medication. At some point, he was not coming to work for a few weeks due to health issues.
18.3. After coming back from sick leave, he started looking for another job in the Bank, which he found and moved to the Credit Risk Industrials 4
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
team. Upon leaving the team, he sent an e-mail message to everyone in the team, saying that though he has worked in a number of stressful positions (incl. CMO), his experience in the TEG team was the worst in his life.
18.4. Upon receiving this message, Mathieu Gelis said in front of a number of people in the team, including myself in relation to his message: ‘What a looser!!!’
19. In an effort reduce the size of the witness statement, please refer to section 4 of the document Timeline of Events for description of the issues experienced and complaints by Emrose Ahmed, Paul Callaghan, Alastair Rose-Smith and Mia Montagna (Trial Bundle 1, pages 23-24)
Staffer Position (Trial Bundle 1, page 25)
20. In January, 2012, following 3 months of hard work as a Staffer, I was summoned to
the office of Mathieu Gelis and was told that a decision had been made to replace me as a staffer.
21. Details are described in section 5 (Trial Bundle 1, page 25). I would re-iterate Mathieu Gelis’ disparaging comments about ‘the kind of credits to grocery stores that are approved in Eastern Europe’ and the opinion that I expressed on the 4th paragraph of section 5 (Trial Bundle 1, page 25), which is that the staffer position change allowed Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre to orchestrate the events of 2012-2014.
Rush 2012 (Trial Bundle 1, pages 25-26)
22. In 2012 I was subjected to a carefully orchestrated campaign by the management of the team (Catherine and Mathieu) starting with my removal from the Staffer position without any rational explanation.
23. The new staffer, Oxana Sultanova, started suddenly giving me disproportionately more work than anyone else in the team. I protested a number of times and often refused to take new work, although this was met with frowns, jokes and seemingly unrelated derogatory remarks by the Staffer and Mathieu/Catherine about my allegedly ‘lower-class pleb’ background (Catherine Pierre).
24. I was under a great deal of stress and had to work on average 15 hours a day and sometimes had to stay in the office without going home for the night. On one of these mornings, Catherine Pierre made a remark passing by my desk, saying: ‘Aren’t people taking showers in Bulgaria? ‘ , which was met with giggles and laughter by the wider team. 5
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
25. In August, 2012, a new round of redundancies was announced at Citi in London. I was surprised to hear Catherine Pierre saying loudly in the office with regard to the announcement: ‘It is time to get rid of the Gypsies in the office’ (My understanding of the remark was related to the fact that there is a large Gypsy (Roma) population based in Bulgaria, many of whom, following Bulgaria’s entry to the EU, had moved to France, UK and other Western European countries). 26. I was furthermore subjected to harassment by Alastair Rose-Smith and Paul Callaghan who were deliberately trying to scare me that I may fall victim of the ongoing redundancy waves (Trial Bundle 1, pages 25-26)
2013 (Trial Bundle 1, page 26)
27. 2013 started in the same way as 2012 in terms of disproportionate work-load regardless of my protests. In late-February, I was sent to Ukraine for a business trip to cover the management due diligence of a very challenging and complex Emerging Market Bond Issue. 28. Details on the atmosphere in the team in this period and the deliberate campaign that Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre were leading against Christopher Blin are given in the Trial Bundle 1, page 26-27.
29. In the beginning of March, I had serious doubts if I could continue working in this atmosphere, which I found extremely harmful and very unhealthy. I asked for a meeting with Mathieu Gelis through his Personal Assistant, which we had at 11 am on the 7th of March, 2013. I told him that I ‘surrender’ and that I could not take all of this anymore and that something needed to change as I found the atmosphere in the team completely unbearable and deeply offensive. I asked him to assist me in finding a less-stressful job within the bank and his precise words were: ‘You need to deal with your s**t first!’ . 30. I tried to explain to him that my issues were not personal but professional, that I had been given an enormous amount of work, which was disproportionate to the work of any other member of the team, and this was now continuing for more than one year. 31. There was no action from Citi or anyone else apart from a meeting with HR and direction from them that I arrange a meeting with Citi Occupational Health.
31.1. I initially declined to participate in the meeting with Citi Occupational Health because I sincerely believed that the solution to my problems in Citi had to do with the organizational problems in the team and the attitude of Mathieu and Catherine, rather than any health problems or issues.
6
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
31.2. However, after Ms. Sonal Shah send an email internally asking: ‘Can we force him to attend?’ and more people kept pressing me to attend, I had no other choice but to accept.
31.3. The meeting itself was extremely counter-productive and did not achieve anything but a waste of time given that the Occupational Therapist was asking me self-contradicting question.
32. My communication with Mathieu after the meeting shows that he was not content with my surrender (Trial Bundle 2, page 324). He could have helped me at that point, he could have taken steps to improve my work environment and/or to move me in a less stressful work environment at Citi in London but he chose not do so.
32.1. His e-mail on page 324 of trial bundle 2 shows that he is being ironic. On my complaints and request for his assistance to solve the workrelated problems, he responds by saying: ‘Bravo! It must have been really tough to share what you did’. 32.2. I respond by clearly stating my expectations, which are that he makes available ‘a large network of support’ (Trial Bundle 2, page 324). It is now clear to me that he never intended to provide any support but and merely wanted to keep pushing me and manipulating me until I break down completely.
32.3. He was trying to make it look like I have a personal problem, though he very well knew that no such personal problem ever existed, which is confirmed in the reports of the Occupational Health in Trial Bundle 1, pages 183-184 which state: ‘From the clinical perspective, Mr. Mechkarov is stable and well in himself’.
33. It is my position that Mathieu truly wanted to break me down completely. He wanted to put me in a situation where I beg for his help and I am forced to do what he says, which is the reason why he and Catherine kept pushing me and manipulating me for many more years. Hospital (Trial Bundle 1, page 26).
34. On 19 April 2013, my body could not survive the continuing stress and I was admitted to hospital following severe abdominal pains. The condition developed at around 11 am, while I was on my desk at work and I immediately reported to the Citi Health Care Centre on the 36th floor of the building.
35. While waiting for a doctor to see me, I lost consciousness for a few minutes. After the health team administered first-aid, they called an ambulance which took me to the Royal London Hospital, where 7
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
36. I spent the day in severe pains despite the pain-killers that the doctors administered. My doctors in the hospital were unsure as to the reasons for the condition, but they said that such conditions are often caused by severe workplace stress. Sick Leave (Trial Bundle 1, page 27-28).
37. I called Catherine and we arranged a meeting (in the beginning of May, 2013), not in Citi but in Brera, one of the cafes outside of Citi. She said that I should keep ‘away from the Bank’ for as long as possible. She said that I should not worry about my job and that there were many other jobs in the Bank and outside of Citi and I would surely be given a choice once I was ‘out’ [presumably of the situation that I was in].
38. We had a follow up meeting late-May (in another café outside of Citi – Nero). She threatened me saying that I should not speak with anyone about what had happened and that ‘the health and safety of you and your family should be more important than career ambitions’. She said that ‘accidents do happen’ but as long as I kept everything confidential, nothing else would happen to me.
39. Catherine said that I should be patient and wait for Mathieu and her to help, which they were to do once they were convinced in my ‘ability to keep matters confidential as a Senior Banker would do’. Furthermore, she said that what happened to me was a ‘lesson’ that was, in her opinion, ‘valuable’ and one that I would be able to use in my career and when I get to a role of managing people. 40. She said that I should meet with Citi Occupational Health and make sure they were given sufficient reasons to pro-long my sick leave by ‘at least a few more months’, so that I have time to ‘think everything through carefully’. I met with Citi Occupational Health and told them I was not feeling well, so my sick leave was pro-longed.
41. Our next meeting was in July, 2013 in which I expressed a desire to come back to Citi but in a different team and in a less-stressful work environment. Catherine was furious and said that any team I join would ‘rotate you out’ of the bank. She said that I should remember how I felt in the hospital and that ‘working in Banking could be dangerous if you do not carefully listen to what people are implying…’ 42. On 9 July 2013, I called Mathieu Gelis over the phone as he was in Paris and asked him directly if I could find a better work environment that would not stress me out so much and his precise words were ‘I cannot promise anything’.
43. This was the moment when I had to consider my options very carefully – I felt quite uncertain as to what to do given that I believed that I could continue in another team as I knew that there are a lot more acceptable work environments but I was not ready to fight with Mathieu and Catherine. If they could kick out so many people out of the team and go unpunished, then I thought they could be powerful enough to prevent me from joining any team. 8
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
44. I remembered Catherine’s words that safety and family were more important than career and I was scared that if I insisted on coming back to Citi she would do her best to prove her words to me. I remembered the nightmare of 2012/2013 and how I asked for help in March, 2013 but nothing happened and how I went to hospital. Was this episode of severe pain and loss of consciousness only a coincidence or was it the ‘lesson’ that I should keep my head down as Catherine implied? 45. On 10 July 2013 I had another meeting with Catherine, in which she said that I should ‘enjoy life as anything could happen… For example, you could be run down by a bus tomorrow…’ She said that if I should ‘prove your patience’ and ability to keep things confidential, I would surely be given a choice to join other banks, because ‘this is how everything around you works’. As long as I was patient and silent, everything would work fine, I was assured – ‘you should not worry’.
46. On the basis of everything that had happened to me and given all these discussions, I simply could not find the courage to insist on coming back. I called Julie-Anne CookeYarborough from HR and asked that I leave as soon as possible.
Signing the Settlement Contract (11th of July, 2013 till September 30th, 2013) (Trial Bundle 1, page 28-29).
47. My next meeting with Catherine was on Friday, August 1st, 2013 (again in the Brera Café). She looked very happy and said that I had made the right decision. She said that HR is waiting for my 7th anniversary with the bank (August 6th, 2013), so that I was compensated for 7 years of service.
48. In mid-August, I called Mathieu Gelis (who was again in Paris). I told him about my decision and he reminded me that I should be patient before starting to look for a job and should rather wait for ‘people to get in touch with me’.
49. When I asked him what type of job might be safe for me, he said that it would likely be a job with ‘a tier-2 or tier-3 bank, probably an Asian bank, which is culturally more suitable for you and, if in London, it would not be client-facing but rather middle office or back office’. 50. He also said that in light of my background, I may be asked to move back to Bulgaria or any other ‘similar’ country. I promised to wait and assured him that I was going to keep our discussion confidential. 51. I continued waiting but there was no news from Citi. I called Catherine on the 2nd of September and she said that they were working on the contract but it had to be approved by New York, so I should be patient. She threatened me to keep silent about everything that had happened to me and not to do anything until I hear from her or Mathieu. She said that she had very powerful friends who could crash me and make it look like an accident. She said that my best course of action was to ‘take 9
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
whatever you are given by HR’, keep silent and wait ‘at least 9 months’ before starting to look for another job and to wait for her and Mathieu to provide advice on next steps.
52. Description of how the receipt of the first draft of the settlement agreement and the signing of the contract were first unreasonably delayed by HR and then rushed are included in Trial Bundle 1, page 29.
53. Description of how Christopher Blin was side-lined from approving my resignation is in Trial Bundle 1, page 29-30.
Waiting For Help (October, 2013 – June, 2014) (Trial Bundle 1, page 230).
54. Trial Bundle 1, page 30 entails a description of how I was waiting and the effect on my physical well-being and my feelings, while I was waiting. 55. I could not reconcile what had happened with my actions or what I had done. If Catherine could be so brutal on the job, she would surely have had reasons for that, I thought. I knew that she came from a very wealthy family in France, lived in a mansion house in Fulham, so the only thing that I could deduce is that she really had friends that were a lot more powerful than anyone I knew. I lived in my small apartment in East London and felt powerless against her threats. 56. My only choice was to wait for Catherine and Mathieu. They had promised to help me find a middle/back office job in a 2nd/3rd – tier bank. As long as it could pay my bills, I was fine with this and would have surely accepted it, had they called.
Tatyana’s Sickness (June, 2014 – August, 2014)
57. Details about my wife and her sickness can be found in Trial Bundle 1, page 30.
58. As agreed, I called Catherine after the expiry of the 9-month period as discussed in June / July 2013. She did not return any of my calls.
Post Termination Complaints
Meeting With Catherine on 21 August 2014
59. I called Catherine again after we came back from our medical trip in relation to Tatyana’s sickness in end-August. 60. She agreed to meet me in the same place (Brera). I gave her an account of what had happened and the poor condition that my family was in, both financially and healthwise.
61. I asked for help but she said that before asking for help from her and Mathieu, I should start looking for a job myself. Her precise words were: ‘You should now start 10
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
looking for a job if you can and, if not, there are always options, including the black market’.
62. I asked if I could meet with my former colleagues and ask for ideas as to what may be available in the job market. She reminded me that what happened was to remain confidential and that this was ‘your part of the deal’. 63. She promised to ‘ask around at Citi’ if there were any open positions, though she said it may not be a good idea for me to come back as headcount reductions were still on-going and my ‘background’ would be a disadvantage.
64. Catherine told me that one of the most important aspects of looking for a job after a long time away from the job market is that I do not try to hide the fact that I have been off market for a long time. ‘Just say the truth, otherwise you will get into trouble. I have heard of people who make up their CVs to fill gaps and then get into trouble and get fired. You don’t want to get in that situation.’ 65. At the very end of the meeting, Catherine asked if I wanted to come back to Bulgaria, I said that this is an option but would prefer to stay in the UK, also because my wife was sick and moving countries would be very difficult. She said: ‘OK, but please remember, after all, Bulgaria is where you started…’ 66. I sent her my CV following the meeting (Trial Bundle 1, page 334), so that she can do as she promised: find out about open positions for which I was qualified in Corporate Banking, Risk Management and Capital Markets Originations, speak with her managers to recommend me and arrange for interviews.
67. She did not do so because she was: i) intentionally misleading me that she wanted to help, while her true goal was to send me to the ‘black market’, to Bulgaria or another similar country; ii) She was concerned that I had already complained about her to Mathieu Gelis on 7 March 2013. She knew that she had been racist and discriminatory against me in the past and was concerned that if I come back on my feet, I would further pursue my complaints both internally and in the courts of law. 68. The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of my claims :
65.1) In her email dated 29 August 2014 (Trial Bundle 1, page 343), Catherine Pierre confirms the promise that she gave me in our meeting on 21 August 2014, i.e. that she would send my CV to all managing directors in corporate banking, risk and capital markets origination and recommend me for the available open positions given my strong performance track record with Citi.
65.2) In particular, she states: ‘Thanks for CV. I will circulate internally…’ (Trial Bundle 1, page 334). There is no evidence that she ever acted on this promise despite the numerous open available job positions with the Respondent (see 11
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
pages 269-305 of Trial Bundle 1) for which I was very well qualified given my performance track record. 65.3) Catherine lied to me that she would help on 21 August 2014, she repeated her lie in her e-mail on 29 August 2014 (Trial Bundle 1, page 334) and never took any action despite my follow ups.
65.4) Citi did not disclose a single piece of evidence showing that Catherine Pierre ever took any steps to connect me with the available job opportunities in Citi as she promised. 65.5) In our meeting on 21 August 2014, she also said that she will send my CV to HR and that I should ‘not worry’ about applying through the web site but rather I should rely on her connections and her help because ‘this is how everything around you works’. There is no evidence that she ever sent my CV to HR.
65.6) There were numerous open positions with the Respondent for which I was perfectly qualified (Trial Bundle 1, pages 269-305). Catherine was aware of most of those but decided to mislead me on purpose. Her intention had never been to help me but rather to give me misleading advice, press me into bankruptcy, so that I am forced to come back to Bulgaria or accept a job on the ‘black market’. 65.7) When David Walker, the Corporate Bank Head of the UK, asked her: ‘Should we take him back?’ (Trial Bundle 2, pages 341), Catherine Pierre chose to keep silent. She never wanted to help me, she was misleading me on purpose, so that I fall victim of her plan and the plan of Mathieu Gelis to force me into bankruptcy and eventually send me back to ‘where I started’.
65.8) There were no ongoing layoffs at Citi and Citi did not present any evidence that there were any. Catherine Pierre lied to me that there are, so that she could frighten me away from returning to Citi, where my stellar career and top performance could have continued, jeopardizing her position and the position of her internal friends and opening the possibility that I may renew my complaints about her discriminatory actions from 2010-2013.
69. In August/September, I met with some former colleagues (Christopher Blin, Brian Magos, Victor Bekh, Emrose Ahmed) without giving them any precise detail as to what happened following my sudden departure, keeping my ‘part of the deal’, the primary purpose of those meeting was to talk to people with regard to potential job opportunities. I also sent an email to Elena Sartor and Serban Manolache (risk managers in the Energy Risk team) to apply for the available positions in their department (Trial Bundle 2, pages 348). 12
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
69.1. In my opinion, Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis, who were very close friends with Elena Sartor, must have specifically asked her not to recommend me for the open positions in Risk, which is the reason why she kept silent when Serban Manolache asked her: ‘Did you know Georgi?’ (Trial Bundle 2, pages 348) 69.2. Elena Sartor knew me very well from my time at Citi and also knew that I was one of the best performers in the bank and therefore perfectly qualified for the available position.
69.3. She did not respond or put forward my application because she was assisting her close friends, Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre.
Christopher Blin (meeting on 27 August 2017 and phone calls in September)
70. We met at Carluccio’s in Canary Wharf. Christopher Blin said that my former colleagues were discussing the circumstances of how I left Citi and everyone thought that they are ‘mysterious’ because they were given no information from Mathieu and Catherine, who were the only people who contacted me. Given my verbal deal with Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis, I did not give him any details on why I left but rather focused on looking for job opportunities. 71. Christopher Blin was initially very eager to help me because he had very high opinion of my performance and technical skills. I worked on transactions with him since 2007, while I was a coverage officer in Bulgaria and he was a corporate finance transactor covering Central & Eastern Europe. He had always praised me for my work and technical skills, which is also evident from his 2013 performance appraisal (Trial Bundle 2, pages 323) in which he recommended me for promotion to VP.
72. Christopher Blin’s enthusiasm was obviously met very coldly by the senior management of the bank. This is clear from his email exchange with Eric Arveschough, who said ‘I am not sure we are interested’(). 73. Eric Arveschough was not interested because he was very close with Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis and he was assisting their plan to send me to the ‘black market’, Bulgaria or another similar country.
74. The open position with Eric Arveschough was available and I was perfectly qualified for it (Trial Bundle 2, page 292). I was not even invited for an interview for that position despite my qualifications and stellar track record in Citi. 75. Similarly, despite the fact that there were 3 open positions in trade for which I was perfectly qualified (Trial Bundle 2, pages 277-284) , the trade heads that Christopher approached, Anurag Chaudhary and Peedar Mac Canna, did not invite me for an interview despite my qualifications and performance track record with the Bank 13
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
despite the fact that both of them refer to the available positions in London (Trial Bundle 2, page 346 and 332).
76. Christopher Blin is a very intelligent professional. He knows that, when there are too many senior people in the bank who are supporting something, he has no chance in pushing it through on his own even if he believes it is the right the thing to do. 77. This the reason why his initial enthusiasm for helping me out quickly turned into a refusal to recommend me. He knew that I was capable of doing a perfect job if I was selected for any of the open positions but he decided that Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre are too powerful to fight with.
78. In my opinion, Christopher Blin would not have acted in this manner if I were Western European or American. He silently assisted Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre because of their French nationality and strong and powerful connections in the bank and, primarily, because he knew that I am a Bulgarian immigrant with limited connections. 79. Keeping silent and remaining complacent was the path of least resistance, which he chose to take despite the fact that he knew that it was not the right thing to do.
Meeting With Brian Magos
80. I meet Brian Magos on 5 September in the Café Brera.
81. Similarly to my meeting with Christopher Blin, Brian expressed his confusion on why I left Citi so suddenly and inquired for my health. His confusion is evidenced by his email from 27 November 2014 (Trial bundle 2, page 416), in which he is stating ‘I wanted to understand the terms of how [Georgi] left Citi’. 81.1. I confirmed that my heath is excellent and has been excellent since July 2013 when my sick leave expired (and almost 1 month and a half before I left the bank) at which point I was declared by my doctors to be medically fit (Trial Bundle, page 183-184). 81.2. Brian was surprised given that he was told by Catherine and Mathieu that I was dealing with health issues.
81.3. Such health issues indeed never existed (apart from a short period after the food poisoning episode in 2013) and were made up by Catherine and Mathieu. They sensed my weakness and my fear in 2013, pushed me to ask for sick leave although there was no health reason for such to be given and then once I expressed desire to come back to Citi, they pushed me even more, knowing that I would be too scared to return. 81.4. On Sep 5th, I was still under the impression that Catherine and Mathieu will keep their ‘part of the deal’. I therefore, told Brian that the 14
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
terms of leaving Citi were discussed with Catherine and Mathieu but did not give him any of the details, keeping my ‘part of the deal’.
82. At the meeting, Brian was asking me questions if I would want to come back to Citi in Bulgaria. 82.1. My response was very firm at that point. I told him that I was not interested in returning to Bulgaria and that I am looking for job opportunities in the UK. 82.2. In my opinion, he was aware of the intentions of Catherine and Mathieu, i.e. to send me back to Bulgaria or to work in the ‘black market’ and was checking to see my opinion and push me in the direction that Catherine and Mathieu wanted me to take.
82.3. By doing so, Brian implicitly adopted and assisted the discriminatory campaign of Catherine and Mathieu.
83. I told Brian that I am particularly interested in job opportunities in Risk Management, Capital Markets and Corporate Banking in London. He said he will let me know if he heard anything but he never came back to me. 84. I strongly believe that Brian was very well aware of the numerous open job positions with Citi (see pages in Trial Bundle 2, pages 269-305) but he did not do anything because he did not want to get in the way of the plans of Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis.
85. Brian Magos was obediently assisting Catherine and Mathieu in their efforts to ruin my career. If he had acted as he promised and if he had connected me with the managers who had available open positions, he would have gotten in trouble with Mathieu and Catherine who he perceived as very senior and powerful. Similar to the actions of Christopher Blin, Brian chose the path of least resistance even though he knew that this path was unfair and discriminatory.
86. The actions of Brian Magos therefore do amount to unlawful discrimination even though he was not the person leading the discriminatory campaign and was simply contributing.
Meeting With Emrose Ahmed
87. I met with Emrose Ahmed in Carluccio’s in the week of 1 September 2014.
88. I was the senior person who was assigned to train Emrose when he joined the team in October 2011 and have developed very cordial relationship with him which is evident from the text messages that we exchanged ahead of our meeting (Trial Bundle 2, pages 339-340). 15
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
89. Similarly to my meeting with Brian and Christopher, Emrose was very confused about the terms upon which I left Citi but once again I kept ‘my part of the deal’ with Catherine and did not give any details.
90. In my opinion Emrose Ahmed was silently assisting his manager at the time, Catherine Pierre. He did not recommend me or refer me to one of the open positions with Citi, because he knew that if he did so, that would get him in trouble with Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis. 91. His actions therefore do amount to unlawful discrimination even though he was not the person leading the discriminatory campaign and was simply obediently assisting his manager, Catherine Pierre.
Looking for Professional Opportunities Outside Citi (August 2014 – November 2014)
92. When I started applying for jobs with financial institutions and recruitment firms, I realized that I was played very nastily by Catherine Pierre. Everyone was asking: ‘What have you done for 1 year? Why didn’t you start earlier?’.
93. I told them that I was a top-performer at Citi, but as one recruiter put it, ‘topperformers very rarely leave due to headcount reductions and stay without a job for years…’ 94. The recruiters said that putting my CV forward would represent a risk, given that any employer would question the reliability of my top-performing track-record in light of my health history and the extended absence from the workforce.
95. The contact of the ‘friend’ that Catherine Pierre asked for proved to be another carefully orchestrated trap. Her ‘friend’, Stephane Rambosson, did not respond to any of my emails or phone calls. (Trial Bundle 2, page 334, email dated 21 August) 96. I briefly thought about ‘closing’ the gap in my CV by adding a volunteering position. However, I remembered the strongly worded advice of Catherine Pierre that such action would get me into trouble and decided not to do that.
97. In my opinion and with the benefit of hindsight, it is very clear to me that Catherine Pierre was deliberately misleading me and taking advantage of my fears. She pushed me to take an extended period of time off work and then gave me advice that she very well knew you will lead to nowhere, so that she can get me in a position where I needed to choose between going back to Bulgaria or getting into trouble by moving to the ‘black market’. 98. As it happens with so many Eastern Europeans in the UK, Catherine perceived me as an easy victim. She knew that as a Bulgarian I have the tendency to remain silent and to cooperate and she thought she could easily take advantage of that bias. 16
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
99. She expected me to follow the standard pattern of behaviour for an Eastern European who was born and raised in communism: choosing to step back, cooperate and even take on the ‘black market’, rather than push back and defend his rights as a Western European would do.
Meeting on 3 November 2014
100. Following a few months of unsuccessful job applications and difficult conversations with recruiters, I started contacting Catherine Pierre. 101. After a lot of delays, she finally agreed to meet me on 3 November, again in Café Brera.
102. At this point I was financially crashed – I told her that I cannot take this anymore and I need her help.
102.1. She asked me about how much I had on my bank account and she said: ‘You have enough for now; once this runs out, things would be different because you may be sitting on a pile of cash.’ It was clear to me at that point that she meant this as a reference to the ‘black market’ which she recommended for me previously. It is my position that she would have never been so brutal if I was someone from Western Europe.
102.2. I pleaded for her help and told her that I am happy to take ANY job that she could make available to me. 102.3. She said that I should prove my trust-worthiness, keep my part of the deal and be patient, so that I ensure the safety of myself and my family.
103. Catherine also said that it may be easier for me to fit in in an Eastern culture (giving me Japan as an example) or in a country in Central and Eastern Europe.
104. I was in a very poor condition in this meeting and even cried in despair given my situation.
105. She did not seem to be particularly moved and told me in detail about the time she had during her recent vacation in Abu Dhabi and how impressed she was with the fact that ‘everyone’ had so many servants (housekeepers, child-minders, cleaners) in their homes. 106. Her comments and behaviour on the meeting were totally inappropriate given the poor financial condition that I was in. 107. Catherine was very well aware of the brutality of her actions and the hugely negative impact they had on me and my family.
17
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
108. She did, however, sense my weakness. Her prejudiced mind allowed her to sincerely believe that this is something she would easily get away with given my limited connections and constrained financial resources.
November Complaints
109. During the month of November, 2014, I had to consider my options once again very carefully, following a discussion with my wife, in which we agreed that if I had kept ‘my part of the deal’ by following Catherine’s instructions and threats despite the dramatic effect they had on our life, it was more than reasonable to ask that Catherine should keep their part of the deal too and help me with finding the job that I was promised by her and Mathieu.
110. I also asked family and friends for financial help, which helped us to keep paying our rent and covering our expenses. I also looked at my Citibank pension savings account, which had some savings that I thought I could withdraw to alleviate my condition.
111. One of the friends that I asked for help is a Romanian colleague from Citi, Sorin Zaicovici, who appears to be the only person who genuinely tried to help me by sending a message to another colleague attaching my CV in case I could be considered for the open positions available (Trial Bundle 2, page 370). That’s what I was promised by Catherine and Mathieu and what should have happened here in the UK and not in Bulgaria or any other country. 112. In my meetings with Sorin, we were discussing a number of different topics, including the poisonous media campaign against Eastern Europeans in the UK and the fact that Citi is by no means a ‘safe heaven’ to Eastern European discrimination, assertions that Sorin appeared to support. 113. I was also trying to get in touch with Catherine to see if she could help me with this administrative matter. She consistently did not respond to my cries for help:
113.1. In the period 3 November – 27 November I sent her numerous, text messages (Trial Bundle, pages 367-369), emails (Trial Bundle, pages 371372) and tried to get in touch with her a number of times over the phone. She did not respond to any of them, making up various reasons for that.
113.2. At one point she picked up my call and, when hearing my voice, very rudely said: ‘You should learn to wait and be patient like a senior banker would do. I will call you when the time is right’. 113.3. I tried calling Julie-Anna Cookey-Yarborough from HR and left numerous voicemails and e-mail messages, to which no one responded.
18
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
113.4. In a message on 20 November 2014, she refused to meet me but instead advised me that I should ‘leverage’ my network or contact my ‘old Bulgarian boss’. (Trial Bundle 2, page 367) 113.5. At this point, Catherine was very well aware of my financial situation and she knew that I cannot wait any more. She therefore was delaying her response to me deliberately.
113.6. Catherine knew that the more I waited, the weaker my financial position would become. 113.7. If what I am saying was not true and there was no verbal agreement between us, then Catherine would have surely taken an action in the period Nov. 3rd till Nov. 26th given how persistent I was. She could have told me that she cannot help me, she could have contacted HR or anyone else at Citi to express concern.
113.8. She did not do so because up until 26 November, when I sent my email to the senior managers of the bank, James Bardrick and David Walker (Trial Bundle 2, page 380), she thought I was highly unlikely to take the step to further defend my rights in any shape or form.
113.9. She was very happy to see me in this position. I was soon going to be in bankruptcy and would have had no other choice but to accept working on the ‘black market’ or to pack up and go back to Bulgaria or another ‘similar’ country. 113.10. Catherine was perfectly content with that scenario, which is the reason why she took no action.
114. On 26 November, I decided that I cannot wait anymore and sent a formal message to Catherine Pierre and HR asking for assistance (Trial Bundle 2, page 380). 115. I then forwarded to James Bardrick, Citigroup Country Officer for the UK and David Walker, Corporate Bank Head for the UK as they were the most senior people I knew at Citi in London (Trial Bundle 2, page 380).
116. On 26 November, I sent another message to James Bardrick and David Walker in which I complained that I was ‘deliberately misled during my time at Citi’ (Trial Bundle 2, page 401). 116.1. Although this email was on the face of it about my pension contributions, it was clear that David Walker and James Bardrick were aware of the true reasons for my complaint, which is confirmed in an email from HR in which David Walker specifically states that he believes that the true reasons for my complaints had ‘more to do with the
19
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
circumstances re leaving the bank then any issue with the communication of pension’ (Trial Bundle 2, page 401).
116.2. I sent a further e-mail to Lindsay Bownass from HR at 20:02 on 26 November (Trial bundle 2, page 398) in which I once again make clear the nature of my complaints stating that I was: ‘deliberately misled on a number of issues by a number of people, including my former manager Catherine Pierre’.
117. I also called some of my former colleagues at Citi (Maybel Saleh, Brian Magos, Christopher Blin) asking for help with these matters and requesting their assistance.
117.1. My text messages were very clearly referencing the preceding multiyear harassment campaign and reflect how scared I was at that point. See text message to: (i)
Christopher Blin (Trial Bundle 2, page 429).
(iii)
Brian Magos (Trial Bundle 2, page 411).
(ii)
Maybel Saleh (Trial Bundle 2, page 400).
117.2. My e-mail to all of them shows how powerless, scared and weak I was at that point (Trial Bundle 2, page 414).
117.3. The connections with the events of the past and the harassment campaign from 2012/2013 is very clear and requires no further explanation.
118. The reason for my complaints was known to everyone involved – starting from the most junior members of the team (Brian Magos and Emrose Ahmed) all the way to the senior management of the bank (James Bardrick and David Walker).
119. I was harassed, bullied and discriminated in the period 2010-2013 and my complaints from November were perceived and understood as complaints about those actions.
120. On 28 November, I received an angry call from Catherine Pierre, in which she threatened me: ‘Regardless of what has happened, you must keep this confidential. You should not share this with your colleagues or anyone else!!’
121. I told her that I have no other choice but to ask people for help. She reverted: ‘We are going to keep this confidential!’
Meetings with Christopher Blin in end-November
20
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
122. On 29 November, despite Catherine’s warnings, I had a meeting with Christopher Blin in which I told him in detail about what happened since I ‘disappeared’ in 2013, including: 122.1. The actions of Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis and how they exploited my fear following my admission to hospital. 122.2. The circumstances around signing the settlement agreement and how I was harassed, threatened and then forced to leave the bank.
122.3. Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre setting up the TEG team in a way that benefits them and side-lining on purpose Christopher Blin and the effect on bond disclosure.
122.4. I told him that I am ready to take action, including legal action and discussing with the regulator, because I have been waiting for Catherine and Mathieu for more than 1.5 years and I cannot wait any more. 122.5. Furthermore, I said that I believe that the way Catherine and Mathieu treated him was unfair. He was a better manager, more experienced, intelligent and technically sound than Catherine or Mathieu and the only reason why they were being promoted rather than him is their brutal, unfair and discriminatory approach. 122.6. Finally, I said that Catherine and Mathieu treated me and Victor Bekh much worse than him because we were Eastern Europeans. However, I told him that they have now put me in a position in which I had no other choice but to complain about them and take further legal action or action with the regulator.
123. Chris said that he agrees with me, however, he appeared worried about my comments and attempted to persuade me to take no action by saying that: 123.1. I should keep silent because in his opinion, ‘you can never win against these people’.
123.2. if I complained about what happened and about the organizational programs at Citi and the effect on bond disclosure, then ‘they can say that you are crazy, no one will believe you!’ 123.3. my only choice is to speak with Catherine Pierre once again to resolve the situation. 123.4. ‘There are so many people who fight and are declared to be crazy; you will easily become one of them… You’d better be careful.’
21
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
123.5. Christopher was clear that he agreed with my complaints, however, he disagreed that anything should or can be done about that. In his view, there was no point in complaining and he encouraged me not to take any further action.
124. In my opinion, the actions of Christopher Blin in our meeting amounted to unlawful victimisation and discrimination because: 124.1. Apart from being a sign of lack of belief in his own ability to do the right thing and defend his rights, this was also unlawful victimization because it was attempted to prevent me from taking legal action against the acts of discrimination that were perpetrated against me. 124.2. By trying to silence my complaints, Christopher was also assisting Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis in their discriminatory campaign calculated to take me back to Bulgaria or another ‘similar’ country or to force me into the ‘black market’.
Phone Call with Amin Manekia on 1 December 2014
125. On 1 December, I had a call with the CEO of Citibank in Africa, Amin Manekia, who I knew from my time of a top performer in Citi in Bulgaria. 126. My email to him asking for a meeting briefly outlines ‘the unfortunate situation’ in which I had fallen and confirms that Catherine Pierre is refusing to speak with me (Trial Bundle 2, page 432).
127. In the call, I complained to Mr. Manekia that Catherine and Mathieu are trying to send me back to Bulgaria and that they have harassed me for many years. 128. I was told by Mr. Manekia that:
128.1. My complaints were ‘dangerous’ and should not be discussed with so many employees. 128.2. If I wanted help, in Mr. Manekia’s opinion, I should come back to Bulgaria, where my abilities would be ‘valued’.
129. I told Mr. Manekia that I was harassed and bullied by Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis and that I have no other choice but to fight them. I also told him that, due to my wife’s health, I have no choice but to stay in London at least for the time being.
130. In my opinion, Mr. Manekia words amounted to unlawful victimisation because they were intended to prevent me from taking legal action against the acts of discrimination that were perpetrated by Catherine and Mathieu. 131. By urging me to come back to Bulgaria, Mr. Manekia was also assisting the discriminatory campaign that was led and orchestrated by Catherine and Mathieu. 22
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
Meeting with Catherine Pierre on 1 December 2014
132. I met with Catherine one last time, on 1 December, again in the cafĂŠ Brera.
133. The meeting started with a noisy conversation in which Catherine was telling me that she was surprised by my complaints and encouraged me to keep silent. 134. At the meeting:
134.1. I pleaded for her help and reminded her of the events of the past, including how I was harassed, bullied and offended as an Eastern European. 134.2. I told her that she and her friends had a verbal deal with me and that if I had kept my part the deal, they should keep theirs too.
134.3. I gave her contacts of headhunders and former colleagues, who I knew that she is very close to and asked that she does what she promised and refer me to the available job positions (Trial Bundle 2, page 269-305).
134.4. I told her that I am not prepared to be silent any more about how I was harassed and bullied by her and Mathieu but also about how they treated Christopher Blin.
134.5. I told her that Christopher Blin was a lot smarter, more experienced and a better manager than her and Mathieu and Catherine and that they have managed to kick him out from the team by a an unfair tarnishing campaign. 134.6. I also told her that I was no longer ready to be silent about how she was manipulating Risk Weighted Assets.
134.7. I told her that I am going to do anything that I could to defend my rights and that, though I personally did not want to create any problems to anyone, Mathieu and she had ruined my life and I had no choice but to take action. 134.8. Furthermore, I reminded her of the events of the past and how she was consistently misleading me and harassing me and I told her that I am no longer happy for her to tell me what I should or should not do.
The Cut Off
23
134.9. I told her that I will be taking legal action against her and the bank unless she acts quickly and does her part of the deal by referring me to the numerous available positions in or outside of the bank.
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
135. The reaction of Catherine Pierre was immediate and, in my opinion, a brutal violation of my human rights that should not be allowed to ever happen again. 136. Immediately after our meeting, she sent an email to HR and Mathieu Gelis in which she very clearly said ‘Need to urgently discuss my meeting with Georgi as he is now threatening the bank and us.’ (e-mail 11:21 am, Trial Bundle 2, page 449). There can be no doubt that she referred to my threat of legal actions against Citibank, Mathieu and herself.
137. After the email, Catherine called first HR and then Mathieu Gelis. As a result of those phone calls, Mathieu Gelis sent an email saying that ‘Georgi threatened both of us personally as well as Citi as a firm’ (e-mail 11:34 am, Trial Bundle 2, page 448). He then concludes that the ‘right people’ should be called (11:34 am, Trial Bundle 2, page 448). 138. It appeared that this happened on the same date when Mathieu Gelis, Catherine Pierre, Amin Pannu and HR hold various meetings (Trial Bundle 2, page 447-448).
139. The detriment was immediate. Amin Pannu, Sonnal Shah, Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre arranged that I am completely cut off from communication with Citi. 140. My meeting with Catherine on 1 December took place at 10 am in the morning.
140.1. By 14:56 an email was sent to all my colleagues asking them to refrain from communication with me (Trial Bundle 2, page 451).
140.2. One day later, a firewall was installed to prevent my emails from reaching over 150,000 Citigroup employee globally, effectively cutting me off my professional network (Trial Bundle 2, page 507). 140.3. Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis, with the unquestioning help of Citigroup’s HR and Internal Investigation departments, have pronounced me guilty and implemented the punishment, irreparably ruining my reputation in the financial services industry and with dozens of colleagues with whom I have had multi-year personal and professional relationship.
140.4. As of the date of this witness statement, more than 2.5 years after those actions, I have only had limited communication with my former TEG colleagues or the thousands of Citi employees globally with whom I used to have excellent multiyear professional relationship.
140.5. I find the actions of Citi from 1 December and 2 December to be unfair and extremely disturbing. By prohibiting Citi’s employees from talking to me, Citi had disconnected me from the great majority of my professional network at the moment, where I need it most. 24
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
140.6. I have spent 7 years of my life dedicated to my job, I was one of the top-performing employees of Citibank in Europe and I do not deserve to be treated in this manner regardless of my cultural and national differences, my marital status, personal background, socioeconomic status or the hostile political rhetoric against my ethnic group in the media and by high-profile nationalist politicians. 140.7. In the 21st century, in the homeland of Magna Carta, this should not have happened.
Meeting with Mr. Amin Pannu
141. On 2 December, I was contacted by Mr Amin Pannu, firstly by telephone. He informed me that Citi’s Internal Investigation unit had launched an investigation following my complaints. He sent a follow up e-mail at 14:22 on 3 December 2014 (Trial Bundle 2, page 514, bottom e-mail)
142. On 4 December at 16:06 (Trial Bundle 2, page 513), I sent Mr. Pannu an email with a draft letter (Trial Bundle 2, page 515-516) that I wanted to send to my colleagues but had not had the courage to do so previously, which describes how I was mistreated by Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis (Trial Bundle 1, pages 215-216). 143. We agreed to set up a meeting, so that I can describe my complaints in further detail, which we agreed to take place in Citibank’s offices at Stirling Square on 8 December.
144. On 8 December, I met with Amin Pannu, a Senior Investigator in Citi’s Internal Investigation Unit. In a 1-hour meeting, I gave him a thorough account of the events surrounding my departure from Citi. Evidence for our meeting can be found in his notes on p. 188-211 of Trial Bundle 1.
144.1. I described in detail my performance track record in Bulgaria. Mr. Pannu took note of the name of my former manager in Bulgaria, Mr. Chavdar Rissin, who he said that he would call to ‘verify’ my contributions. He promised to take into consideration my performance feedback when evaluating my grievance. 144.2. I then went on to describe the details of my complaint against Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis and how I was threatened and harassed by them.
144.3. I gave a lot of detail about the circumstances of leaving Citi, including how I was threatened by Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis and how I was forced to attend the meetings with Occupational Health and subsequently rushed into and forced to sign the Settlement Agreement. 25
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
144.4. I gave a summary to Mr. Pannu about other employees such as Oxana Sultanova, Paul Callaghan, Victor Bekh (Trial Bundle 1, page 206) and how they were harassed and mistreated by Catherine Pierre and Mathieu Gelis. 144.5. Furthermore, I outlined my complaints against the structure of the TEG team (Trial Bundle 1, page 210) and told him that it was designed to benefit Mathieu and Catherine but was exposing Citi to a number of risks due to the inadequacies of the bond disclosure.
144.6. I confirmed that Catherine Pierre did manipulate the Risk Weighted Assets of the bank. 144.7. Mr. Pannu focused his questions on the structure of the team, the issues of other employees and the effect on bond disclosure.
144.8. He promised to investigate internally but said that I must NOT contact Catherine Pierre or Mathieu Gelis in the meantime.
144.9. He said that HR had launched a separate investigation and they would be in touch with me. 144.10. Mr. Pannu had after that carried out a long investigation, which the Respondent refuses to disclose as of the date of this statement: (i)
(ii)
(iii)
26
This is evident from his internal system folder (Trial Bundle 1, pages 212-214), which shows that there are a number of documents opened in relation to the investigation and numerous evidence as it can be seen on page 213 of the bundle referencing among others documents dated 2 December, 3 December, 9 December 2014, 29 December, 19 January and 22 January, none of which have been disclosed.
Victor Bekh, another Eastern European employee that was harassed and bullied by Mathieu Gelis and Catherine Pierre, who I met by chance in the public transport on 1 August 2015, told me that he was questioned by a senior manager of the bank (Gary Von Lehmden) as part of the investigation. Citi denied such investigation ever taking place, while the Employment Tribunal refused to issue a witness order asking Victor Bekh to confirm what happened (as of the date of this statement). Furthermore, the Respondent refused to disclose the investigation report of Mr. Pannu despite the fact that the disclosure was specifically ordered by the EAT on 11 May 2016 (Trial Bundle 1, 109-110).
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
(iv)
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
Justice Mitting made the obvious observation in the EAT decision of 11 May 2016 (Trial Bundle 1, 98-108) that the documents actually disclosed are anodyne and may be incomplete (par. 18(2), trial bundle 1, page 106). As of the date of this statement, Citi continues to be allowed to cover up those documents.
145. After my meeting with Mr. Pannu, I sincerely believed that a fair internal investigation and grievance procedure will be carried out by Citi, which I was 100% sure would have found that I was saying the truth, i.e. that I was unfairly treated by Mathieu and Catherine and that I was threatened out of the bank in an extremely unfair manner.
146. I was thinking about my contributions to Citi and how much I had given to the bank in terms of my own efforts, hard work and dedication, both in Bulgaria and the UK. I remembered how I was selected as a ‘Colleague of the Year’ multiple times and how much time and effort I spent in training junior colleagues. I was confident that Citi will not only make a conclusion in my favour but would also do the right thing and help me to get out of the situation in which they put me. 146.1. Given the promises that were given to me by Mr. Pannu and HR and my numerous contribution to the Respondent, Citi should have followed their own grievance procedure and employee handbook (Trial Bundle 1, pages 217-249).
146.2. The Settlement Agreement that I signed in 2013 did not prevent me from making discrimination and victimisation complaints in accordance with the judgment of Judge Warren from 1 May 2015 (Trial Bundle 1, page 63-77). 146.3. Therefore, my discrimination complaint to Mr. Pannu, which included treatment both pre termination and post-employment should have been treated in accordance with the Employee Handbook and the Grievance Procedures (Trial Bundle 1, pages 217-249).
147. I kept waiting and waiting but noone was contacting me, despite my expectations and the promises of Amin Pannu. 148. On 5 January, I tried to call some of my more junior colleagues (Emrose Ahmed and Sorin Zaicovici) and, after none my calls were returned, I sent them text messages asking for a meeting (Trial Bundle 2, pages 508-509). None of my calls were returned. 149. I guessed, as it turned out later quite rightly, that Citi had asked a large number of my former colleagues, including Sorin and Emrose, to refrain from talking to me. 27
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
150. I felt very disappointed with Citi. Not only that they did not respond to my complaints and did not attempt to rectify the situation but also, it appeared that they had deliberately cut me off communication with my friends and colleagues. 151. I felt discriminated and abused. Catherine, Mathieu, the HR and Internal investigation departments knew that I was a weak Bulgarian immigrant, who was forced on his knees begging for help. They never thought I have the power and the strength to stand up and defend my rights. 152. Refusing to contact me as they promised, avoiding carrying out a proper internal investigation and grievance procedure, and cutting me off communication with my former colleagues, was something that they thought they could easily get away with.
153. I was sure and I continue to be sure that if I were Western European, none of this would have ever happened, at least not with the same level of severity and brutality. 154. On 6 January, I had absolutely no other choice but to launch my legal action against Citi by initiating an ACAS early reconciliation request.
Motifs
155. In my opinion, there are two motifs / reasons, which clearly explain the behaviour of Mathieu Gelis, Catherine Pierre and what they have done to me:
155.1. One of the main reasons, in my opinion, is their genuine desire to sideline and inhibit potential competitors for the limited roles of Managing Directors / Code 1 staff at Citi. I would have been a real competitive threat to them if I had maintained my performance, including but not limited to, my top performance ratings (which are determined by an independent commission of reviewers - primarily MDs from across EMEA), if I had continued presenting the efficient structural ideas that I was regularly putting forward (e.g. LTC charge methodology) and if I had continued to receive the high words of praise for my work from other MDs as well as, primarily, from clients of the bank. 155.2. This was extremely irritating and highly dangerous to them, especially to Catherine Pierre, who was recently promoted to a Director position. Had I maintained my performance and hard work, I would have surely been promoted to Director in 2016 and possibly to Managing Director in a few years’ time and I would have been in direct competition with her for the limited number of high-paid roles of senior managers with direct business development or functional responsibilities. 155.3. Both Catherine and Mathieu are extremely ambitious. They were ready to do anything to achieve their goals and they knew that they had
28
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
to stop me as early as possible in my career, so that they remove me as a potential threat to their ambitions.
155.4. This was the reason why they behaved so aggressively with other employees of the team as described above. However, in my case, they went so far, primarily because of the fact that I was constantly recognized as a ‘super-star’ within Banking in EMEA and also because they were very confident that they could easily get away with it given my Bulgarian origin, my poor socio-economic background and lack of high-profile connections.
156.
155.5. Catherine knew very well that if I had come back following the accident in April, 2013, I may have had the chance to recover and go to some other team in Banking and I would still have been a significant threat to her in only a few years’ time. This is why she tried to delay me as much as possible, knowing that the more time I spend outside of the workforce, the more difficult it is going to be for me to come back in a strong role or position. The second reason is more subtle.
156.1. They were able to orchestrate such a wide-spread campaign against me because of my Bulgarian origin. They could easily convince the newjoiners of the team that ‘the Bulgarian’ is getting ahead of himself (as Mathieu told me directly). The hostile political rhetoric in the media and by nationalist politicians against Bulgarian immigrants both in France and the UK helped them, given that the mainstream media is one-sided and often times outright racist and discriminatory against Bulgarians.
156.2. What angered them even more was that, despite their efforts in crushing me down in 2012, I still managed to keep up my performance at an excellent level (top 25% in 2012). This is when they started losing their temper and often times attacked me directly and publicly on the basis of my Bulgarian origin and nationality (as described above). 156.3. They were genuinely irritated that someone coming from Bulgaria with experience in allegedly ‘the kind of credits to grocery stores that are approved in Eastern Europe’ could maintain his performance and moral standards despite the subversive and concerted attack that they organised against me.
29
156.4. That’s why, once I fell down and was admitted to hospital, they did not stop pushing me and manipulating me into further ruining my life and my career. Their prejudiced minds allowed them to sincerely believe that this was something they would easily get away with, given that they were
Mechkarov v Citibank, N.A.
Witness Statement Georgi Mechkarov
16 August 2017
dealing with a poor Eastern European immigrant who had limited contacts and constrained resources. If I were British, French, German or American, they would have never gone so far.
157. This witness statement is true to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.
30