2014-UNAT-486, Khan
As a preliminary matter, UNAT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. UNAT then considered the Appellant’s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. UNAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP’s Harassment Policy. UNAT also held that UNDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate because sexual harassment is serious misconduct, especially when a staff member’s supervisor is the harasser. UNAT affirmed the UNDT finding that there were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would warrant a lesser sanction. UNAT held that there were no procedural irregularities and the investigation conducted was thorough. UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service for misconduct in the form of sexually and verbally harassing staff members and abuse of authority. UNDT determined that the disciplinary measure of separation from service was proportionate in light of the Applicant’s supervisory position and because his conduct created a hostile work environment for the staff at his Office. UNDT dismissed his application.
An Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred. When termination is a possible sanction, the misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.