2011-UNAT-179

2011-UNAT-179, Ibekwe

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the Appellant was unable to establish that her non-selection to the two posts was flawed, or that she was not given full and fair consideration during the selection process. UNAT noted that the Appellant’s claim was that she faced general discrimination for many years, but that she pleaded this without demonstrating specific discrimination when she was denied the appointment. UNAT held that there is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. UNAT held that proof of unsubstantiated allegations of general discrimination, in the form of two letters written in 1995 and 1997 could not constitute evidence of real discrimination sufficient to upset the two non-selection decisions taken in 2007. UNAT held that it failed to understand how the Appellant could complain about the letters having been placed in her OSF behind her back when the letters were sent to her and she must have been aware of their content. UNAT held that UNDT did not exceed, or fail to exercise, its jurisdiction, or err on questions of law, facts or procedure. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

The Applicant contested, inter alia, the administration’s responses to her complaints of discrimination being placed in her Official Status File (OSF) without her knowledge and her non-selection for two positions a decade later. UNDT dismissed the application.

Legal Principle(s)

There is always a presumption that official acts have been regularly performed. A staff member who challenges a non-selection decision has to establish, through clear and convincing evidence, that they were denied a fair chance of promotion.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Full Judgment

Applicants/ Appellants

Ibekwe

Entity

OHCHR

Case Number(s)

2010-184

Tribunal

UNAT

Registry Location :

New York