Woman Sues Former Employer for 20 Million Rubles Over Dismissal
Returning to work proved easier than suing for back pay.
Yelena P., a woman from Tyumen, demanded 20 million rubles (approximately $250,000 at current rates) from her former employer—a large pharmaceutical company. She insisted on payment of wages for five years. As it turned out, the woman was fired, and later she was reinstated through the court, but never actually returned to work.
Yelena worked as a medical representative for a subsidiary of Nestlé. In 2020, she was laid off due to staff reduction, but the court found this illegal and reinstated her. Formally, the dismissal record was annulled, but after that, the woman never appeared at the office or contacted management. Despite this, she continued to consider herself employed and demanded salary for all the years while the dispute lasted.
Positions of the Parties in Court
Employee«s Demands
Yelena filed a lawsuit in which she demanded to recover from the company:
Back wages from August 2020 to June 2025—over 8.1 million rubles (approximately $101,200 at current rates);
Compensation for delayed payments—about 10.8 million rubles (approximately $135,000 at current rates);
Compensation for moral damages—5 million rubles (approximately $62,500 at current rates).
She claimed that she was ready to perform work daily, but the employer hindered her: did not connect corporate email and did not assign tasks.
Employer«s Position
The company insisted that it fully complied with the court decision to reinstate the employee. However, Yelena ignored all attempts to contact her and over all these years did not make a single real attempt to start work. The company emphasized that wages are payment for labor, which was not performed, and therefore there are no grounds for payments.
What the Court Decided
The Kalininsky District Court of Tyumen completely denied the employee«s claims. The court considered the key fact: after reinstatement, the plaintiff removed herself from work.
The court explained that labor relations are mutual in nature. Formal reinstatement is not enough to receive salary—it is necessary to actually perform labor functions. Since Yelena P. did not provide any reports, correspondence, or any other evidence of performing duties over the five-year period, her demands were denied.
Not agreeing with the decision, the woman filed an appeal. However, the appellate court confirmed that there are no grounds for paying huge sums for work that was essentially not performed.
Earlier we reported how a woman from Tyumen tried to sue for an apartment from the Rosgvardiya (National Guard of Russia), in which her family lived for 25 years. However, the agency stated that the apartment is service housing and demanded to vacate the premises.
