The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of Zia Chishti’s lawsuit against Tatiana Spottiswoode and her attorneys, leaving the 2019 arbitration award in Spottiswoode’s favour fully intact.
The three-judge federal appellate panel upheld the dismissal with prejudice, meaning Chishti’s amended complaint cannot be refiled in its existing form. The court rejected his claims for defamation, false light, breach of contract, tortious interference, abuse of process, intentional infliction of emotional distress, conspiracy and loss of consortium.
The decision is significant because it follows Chishti’s March 2025 settlement of separate libel proceedings against The Telegraph in the United Kingdom.
After that settlement, Chishti and his wife publicly stated that the outcome showed that accusations made against him were false and that his reputation had been vindicated.
The U.S. appellate court did not rule on the UK proceedings or interpret the terms of the Telegraph settlement. Instead, it considered Chishti’s federal appeal arising from his lawsuit against Spottiswoode and others.
Its judgment confirms that the UK settlement did not disturb the separate arbitration award issued in 2019, nor did it support Chishti’s effort to rescind that award through litigation in Washington, D.C.
The underlying dispute dates back to arbitration proceedings involving Spottiswoode, a former employee of Afiniti, the technology company previously led by Chishti.
In 2021, Spottiswoode testified before the House Judiciary Committee about her experience and the use of mandatory arbitration in workplace sexual assault and sexual harassment cases. Her testimony was given pursuant to a congressional subpoena and became part of the legislative record.
Congress later passed legislation restricting the enforceability of mandatory arbitration agreements in disputes involving sexual assault and sexual harassment.
Chishti subsequently brought legal proceedings alleging that Spottiswoode’s congressional testimony and public comments were defamatory. He also challenged statements made by her attorney in newspaper interviews and on social media.
The appellate court concluded that Spottiswoode’s testimony to Congress was absolutely privileged under District of Columbia law because it was directly connected to a legislative proceeding.
The judges also determined that statements made after the hearing were protected opinions, fair comment or privileged reports concerning an official congressional proceeding.
The court further rejected Chishti’s breach of contract arguments concerning the alleged disclosure of confidential arbitration materials. It concluded that several alleged disclosures did not violate the relevant protective orders, while the remaining claim was barred by legislative privilege.
In its opinion, the appellate court quoted the district court’s assessment that the lawsuit was “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 favour.”
The judgment therefore preserves the legal consequences of the arbitration while rejecting Chishti’s attempt to obtain damages or other relief based on Spottiswoode’s testimony and subsequent public statements.
The ruling also follows other legal setbacks for Chishti in the United States.
In separate proceedings, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that certain claims brought by Chishti against TRG entities had previously been released under a 2022 settlement agreement.
The New York court also found that asset transfers to his spouse had been made with actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and ordered assets to be turned over to TRG to satisfy an arbitration award.