ARTICLE
22 August 2025

KP Disputes Wins Employment Discrimination Case At AIFC Court

KP
KP Disputes

Contributor

KP Disputes is Kazakhstan’s first boutique law firm fully dedicated to resolving tax and customs disputes. We handle complex cases daily, staying on top of emerging court trends to secure a competitive edge for our clients. Our Partners actively manage high-stakes matters, supported by a dedicated legal team
A former employee of the bank filed a claim alleging discrimination in remuneration. His arguments were based on the assertion that, as a Kazakhstani citizen, he was treated differently compared to other employees...
Kazakhstan Employment and HR

The KP Disputes team successfully defended the interests of the Kazakhstan branch of a leading Chinese bank in a landmark employment discrimination dispute before the Court of the Astana International Financial Centre (AIFC)

A former employee of the bank filed a claim alleging discrimination in remuneration. His arguments were based on the assertion that, as a Kazakhstani citizen, he was treated differently compared to other employees seconded from China.

In considering the case, the Court confirmed that Regulation 59(1) of the AIFC Employment Regulations regulates direct discrimination, which cannot be justified, whereas Regulation 59(2) regulates indirect discrimination, which is capable of objective justification provided that the justification is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

The judge concluded on the evidence that if there was any discrimination in terms of remuneration, it was justified by the need to provide an incentive to employees from China to relocate to Kazakhstan. Accordingly, the former employee's claim was dismissed.

The AIFC Court also refused the claimant's permission to appeal, noting its lack of prospects.

This case is significant for the regulation of employment relations within the AIFC: it establishes the legal position that differences in remuneration between local and foreign employees are permissible where such differences have an objective and proportionate justification aimed at achieving a legitimate purpose.

For KP Disputes, this case serves as an example of successfully defending a client in a strategically important dispute with implications for Kazakhstan's investment climate. The client's case was handled by Ravil Kassilgov, Aibek Kambaliyev, and Bekzada Issabekov.

References to court decisions:

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More