The Matter
A client of KIAP Law Firm faced an employment dispute initiated by a former employee seeking to recover a bonus payment. The case was complicated by two factors, each giving rise to distinct risks:
- failure to obtain the employee's acknowledgment of internal policies. The employee had not signed off on the internal regulations governing the procedure for bonus calculation and payment. This provided the employee with a procedural basis to argue that the relevant policies did not apply to him and could not restrict his right to payment.
- allegation of document forgery against the employer. During the proceedings, the employee claimed that documents produced by the employer had been forged. This shifted the dispute from a straightforward employment law matter into one carrying heightened procedural risk: the court could view the employer's entire evidentiary record with skepticism, while the reputational fallout extended well beyond the specific case at hand.
Taken together, these circumstances created a narrative in which the employee appeared as the aggrieved party and the employer as an unscrupulous counterparty who had deprived a staff member of earned compensation.
The Lawyers' Mandate
Given the factual circumstances of the case and the employee's position, the KIAP legal team needed to persuade the court that the bonus was not an unconditional entitlement and that its calculation and payment were governed by internal policies applied by the employer consistently and on justifiable grounds; to neutralize the argument regarding the lack of acknowledgment of internal regulations, preventing it from becoming an automatic basis for ruling in the employee's favor; and to refute the forgery allegation, protecting both the evidentiary record and the client's business reputation.
Approach and Outcome
Acting in the client's interests, the KIAP legal team developed a legal position that drew a clear distinction between mandatory and incentive-based payments and demonstrated that the bonus policy had been applied uniformly, without any element of discrimination. This position was upheld by the first-instance court, the court of appeal, and the cassation court. A systematic approach to the evidentiary record allowed the team to identify the weaknesses in the employee's arguments and prepare counterarguments in advance, including a response to the lack-of-acknowledgment argument. The lawyers also persuaded the court that the forgery allegation was a procedural tactic aimed at discrediting the employer rather than a substantiated claim.
The case demonstrates that even where formal procedural circumstances — such as the absence of a signed acknowledgment of internal policies — and direct accusations of bad faith in the form of document forgery place significant pressure on the employer's position, a well-structured legal strategy can not only protect the employer's legitimate interests but also preserve its business reputation.
Team
The matter was handled by Partner Julia Paushkina and Senior Associate Dmitry Kazankov.