US Appeals Court Rejects Zia Chishti Lawsuit, Upholds Tatiana Spottiswoode Arbitration Award
Stories are grouped across languages, rewritten into a fixed editorial format, and linked to original sources.
TL;DR
- US federal appeals court dismissed Zia Chishti's lawsuit.
- The 2019 arbitration award in favor of Tatiana Spottiswoode remains valid.
- Chishti's claims were rejected, and the requested relief was denied.
- The decision ends Chishti's challenge in US courts.
Overview
A US federal appeals court has affirmed the dismissal of Zia Chishti's lawsuit against Tatiana Spottiswoode and others, leaving a 2019 arbitration award in Spottiswoode's favor unchanged. Chishti's lawsuit sought to overturn the confidential arbitration award following allegations related to sexual assault and harassment raised by Spottiswoode.
What Happened
In July 2026, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit unanimously upheld a lower court's decision dismissing Zia Chishti's lawsuit.
Chishti, a former executive at Afiniti and TRG, had sought damages and an order to rescind a 2019 arbitration award granted to Tatiana Spottiswoode, a former Afiniti employee.
The appeals court found that Spottiswoode's testimony before a congressional committee was protected by privilege as it was under subpoena and part of legislative proceedings.
Statements made to the media and public comments regarding the case were deemed protected as opinion under the First Amendment or by the fair reporting privilege.
The appeals court declined to revisit the validity of the 2019 arbitration award, finding no grounds for relief. The court noted that a separate UK libel case settlement in 2025 was not at issue in this decision.
Context
The underlying case relates to Tatiana Spottiswoode's confidential arbitration against Zia Chishti involving allegations of sexual assault and harassment. The 2019 arbitration award was made in her favor prior to her public congressional testimony in 2021.
Chishti's subsequent US lawsuit sought to overturn the arbitration ruling and claim damages, but both the lower court and the appeals court rejected his claims.
Why It Matters
- The decision affirms the enforceability of confidential arbitration awards in US courts, even in cases involving high-profile testimony and public allegations.
- It also clarifies legal protections for testimony before Congress and for statements relating to matters of public concern.