Ãå±±½ûµØ

2019-UNAT-907

2019-UNAT-907, Korduru

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

UNAT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful.  UNAT held that UNDT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. UNAT upheld UNDT’s finding that Ms. Koduru’s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. UNAT rejected Ms. Koduru’s request for costs. UNDT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the UNDT judgment.
Accountability referral: The UNAT noted that the UNDT found that Ms. Koduru was the victim of abuse of authority and harassment on two occasions by her supervisor, Ms. Farley, who had nationalized Ms. Koduru’s post one year earlier than approved by the General Assembly, and had recruited a new officer in disregard of the Civilian Staffing Review.  UNAT referred the matter of Ms. Farley’s conduct to the Secretary-General for accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Ms Koduru contested his decision not to renew her contract, following a comparative review process. UNDT held that the decision to separate Ms Koduru was unlawful as it was discriminatory and constituted an abuse of authority. UNDT ordered that the decision not to renew Ms Koduru’s appointment and to separate her from service be rescinded. The Secretary-General was ordered to reinstate Ms Koduru in service for the seven-week period she was separated to ensure her continuity of service should she be reviewed for eligibility for a continuing appointment and after-service health insurance, and to pay Ms Koduru her net base salary and entitlements for the same period.

Legal Principle(s)

UNDT is only required to set compensation as an alternative to an order of rescission and/or specific performance when a decision touches on and concerns appointment, promotions, and/or terminations.

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.

Applicants/ Appellants
Korduru
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry Location :
Date of Judgment
Judge(s)
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type