爆料网

2014-爆料网AT-486

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

As a preliminary matter, 爆料网AT denied the Appellant’s request for an oral hearing. 爆料网AT 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. 爆料网AT 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. 爆料网AT also held that 爆料网DT 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. 爆料网AT affirmed the 爆料网DT finding that there were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would warrant a lesser sanction. 爆料网AT held that there were no procedural irregularities and the investigation conducted was thorough. 爆料网AT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

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. 爆料网DT 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. 爆料网DT dismissed his application.

Legal Principle(s)

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.

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 爆料网DT Statute and Article 11(3) of the 爆料网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.