Former TRG CEO loses landmark defamation case in US

Chishti initiated lawsuit against Spottiswoode and her lawyers, seeking $500m in damages

Former TRG CEO Zia Chishti has lost a landmark defamation case against Tatiana Spottiswoode, a former employee of an associated company, and her lawyers in the Washington DC District Court in the United States.

Chishti had initiated the lawsuit against Spottiswoode and her legal representatives, seeking $500 million in damages.

Earlier, Spottiswoode had won an arbitration against Chishti that found him liable for sexual harassment, assault and battery, resulting in the latter paying over $5 million to the former. 

Chishti was forced to resign from all his positions at TRG and associated companies in late 2021 following a high-profile hearing in the US Congress during which Spottiswoode detailed how he sexually harassed and assaulted her during a business trip. 

Spottiswoode’s testimony led to the passing of a bi-partisan bill in the US, outlawing forced arbitration in employment cases involving sexual assault and sexual harassment. Spottiswoode stood behind President Biden as he signed this bill into law in 2022.

In late 2022, Chishti sued Spottiswoode and her lawyers in a US court, seeking $500 million in a defamation case for their testimony to Congress.

Shortly afterwards, the US House Judiciary Committee posted the sexual harassment arbitration award against Chishti on the website of the US House of Representatives.

In a scathing ruling dismissing Chishti’s case, Senior Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the US District Court struck down all of Chishti’s claims, stating that his defamation complaint “is a not-so-thinly veiled attempt to undo the outcome of an arbitration that rejected Chishti’s account of events and ruled in Spottiswoode’s favor”. 

The judge further ruled that Spottiswoode’s statements to the US Congress as well as those made thereafter enjoyed absolute legislative immunity and constituted protected speech. 

The ruling described Chishti’s defamation complaint as “lengthy, salacious and inappropriate” and criticised his legal approach.