2012-��AT-212

��AT Held or ��DT Pronouncements

The Appellant appealed the amount of damages awarded by ��DT and claimed additional compensation for the excessive delay of more than four years, from the date she requested an administrative review to the date of the ��DT judgment. ��AT held that the Appellant had been adequately compensated and noted that, unless she could show that she was singled out to work more than her similarly placed colleagues, it would be difficult to conclude that the Chief demanding a higher work output from the Appellant constituted harassment. ��AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the ��DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant contested the conclusion of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG) that her medical condition was not the result of alleged harassment. ��DT found that the Administration failed in its duty to create working conditions conducive to the Applicant��s health but held that she had already been compensated by the Secretary-General for medical costs and re-credited her with 339 days of medical leave.

Legal Principle(s)

Work-related pressures will not necessarily constitute harassment unless an individual can demonstrate that they were singled out to work more than their similarly placed colleagues.

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 ��DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the ��AT 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

Edwards

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement