UNDT/2020/177

UNDT/2020/177, Sohier

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

No evidence showed a link between the Applicant having expressed divergent views on a work-related matter and the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment. The decision not to extend the fixed-term appointment was based on operational requirements and followed the Security Council’s decision to withdraw MINUJUSTH. The Applicant had no expectation of renewal of her fixed-term appointment. No evidence showed that MINJUSTH made a written promise to extend the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment. There is no legal provision directing the Administration to find placement for staff members at the expiry of their fixed-term appointments, therefore the Administration had no obligation to find alternative placement for the Applicant. The Administration clearly stated that the reason for the non-renewal of the Applicant’s appointment was the withdrawal of MINUJUSTH decided by the Security Council. Related

Decision Contested or Judgment Appealed

Decision not to renew the Applicant’s fixed-term appointment.

Legal Principle(s)

Fixed-term appointments carry no expectation of renewal. Expiration of a fixed-term appointment takes place automatically, without prior notice, on the expiration date specified in the letter of appointment. A decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive. It is the applicant’s burden to prove such factors played a role in the administrative decision. There is no obligation on the Administration to retain staff members whose fixed-term appointments expire.

Outcome

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

Sohier

Entity

MINUJUSTH

Case Number(s)

UNDT/NY/2019/086

Tribunal

UNDT

Registry Location :

New York