�山����

UNAT held that the ICJ had breached its duty to protect the staff member against harassment by another staff member. UNAT held that, once senior management had become aware of the incidents, it should have envisaged that similar incidents could happen in the future, and it failed to take the appropriate measures to protect its staff. UNAT awarded USD 12,500 to compensate the staff member for the harm suffered, and especially the harm to her reputation during the course of the investigations. UNAT also awarded 3,630 Euros in legal fees.

UNAT held that the Appellant failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting the admission of additional evidence on appeal. UNAT found no errors in the UNDT’s analysis that there were no procedural flaws in the investigation that impacted the Appellant’s rights. UNAT found no errors in UNDT’s finding that the Administration had the discretion to initiate disciplinary proceedings. UNAT held that the Administration could neither be compelled to initiate disciplinary proceedings nor impose the reasonable accommodation requested by the Appellant, namely no contact with his First...

UNAT agreed with the UNRWA DT that the contested decision was a lawful exercise of discretion. Regarding the Appellant’s claim that the process was tainted because of the lapse of time since the complained of behavior occurred (ten years) and because of the hearsay nature of the evidence, UNAT explained that these same arguments were made both to the DT and to the Administration during the investigation phase. The Tribunal agreed with the UNRWA DT that there was sufficient corroborating evidence to back the allegations. The Tribunal also noted that it is within the UNRWA DT’s role to review...

The Appeals Tribunal found that Mr. Karkara failed to show that the UNDT’s assessment of the evidence had resulted in a manifestly unreasonable decision. It also found that the UNDT did not make any errors with regard to the admissibility of witnesses. The UNAT further found that the UNDT did not commit any procedural error, and Mr. Karkara’s allegations of procedural irregularities did not put the UNDT’s findings into doubt.  Accordingly, the UNAT agreed that there was clear and convincing evidence of sexual abuse and exploitation by Mr. Karkara. The UNAT also held that the sanction of...

Given the modest level of compensation that UNDT awarded to Ms. Malhotra and its non-payment since 20 November 2020, UNAT awarded interest on the 3-month net base salary calculated at the US prime rate from 20 November 2020 to the date of payment.

UNDT preliminarily held that only facts occurred from early 2005 to 7 November 2007 were to be taken into consideration with regard to the allegations of harassment leveled by the Applicant. Consequently, reported actions and decisions dating back to 2004, in particular the non-promotion of the Applicant in 2004, were excluded from the present Judgment. Regarding the remainder of the application, UNDT held that the Applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his allegations that he was subjected to harassment by the Organization and that the latter bore responsibility for...

Harassment allegations: People are entitled to their opinions, even unflattering or wrong-headed, about colleagues. It is only when those opinions are conveyed in ways that constitute harassment or abuse that they become problematical in a legal sense. A genuine opinion about a colleague’s competence that happens to be adverse is not susceptible of criticism. While not placing the delays of the applicant in making complaints about the matters to which he has referred on the scales against him, those delays have made it much more difficult for him to prove they occurred quite as he alleges...

When attempting to establish a pattern of retaliation with regard to past decisions, the question is one of the relevance of those decisions, not receivability. Whether or not the SGB on retaliation was in force at the time an act or decision took place, the act or decision can still be considered retaliatory and constitute serious misconduct. The burden on the respondent of proving “by clear and convincing evidence” in respect of decisions made before the provision came into effect that “it would have taken the same action absent the protected activity” (ST/SGB/2005/21) applies to decisions...

In its findings, the Tribunal found that the evidence in support of the charges was credible and that the Applicant failed to prove that the decision to summarily dismiss him was arbitrary or motivated by prejudice or other extraneous factors, or was flawed by procedural irregularities or error of law. With regards to the Applicant’s allegations of breach of due process, the Tribunal could not find any evidence that the rights of the Applicant had been violated. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the Respondent discharged his burden of proof and that he made proper use of his discretion.

The UNDT found that the Panel on Discrimination and other Grievances, which was the body mandated to investigate the Applicant’s complaint, failed to act expeditiously in bringing the Applicant’s case to conclusion, finish its investigation, and issue its final report, as required by ST/AI/308/Rev.1. The UNDT found that the Organization failed to properly address the Applicant’s complaint of harassment and discrimination and was thus in breach of the Applicant’s contract. The UNDT found that the Applicant did not prove that any actual economic loss warranting compensation was caused to him...