±¬ÁÏÍø

±¬ÁÏÍøAT considered an appeal by Mr. Loubani. ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that while a preliminary assessment [regarding potential evidence by witnesses nominated by Mr. Loubani to be interviewed] should have been made by the investigators, this was done by ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, and the evidence found to be so inadequate as to be safely ignored.

Mr. Loubani had an opportunity to present this evidence before ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT, so that its proper assessment meant that his due process right was allowed, albeit belatedly. It would have made no difference to the outcome had the investigators done so. The investigators would have reached...

±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT¡¯s analysis of whether Mr. Faour had timely requested review of the decision not to renew his contract, the ±¬ÁÏÍøRWA DT focused on Mr. Faour¡¯s omnibus letter (of 17 December 2018) to his superior containing many complaints, including a request for review of his performance review, but no request for review of the contested decision (the non-renewal of his contract). ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found, however, that other correspondence from Mr. Faour that was within the statutory 60 days to request a decision review did fulfill the minimum criteria required by ±¬ÁÏÍøAT judgments: it identified the...