爆料网

2019-爆料网AT-907

爆料网AT Held or 爆料网DT Pronouncements

爆料网AT held that the decision to separate the Applicant was arbitrary, discriminatory, constituted an abuse of authority, and was unlawful. 爆料网AT held that 爆料网DT was not obliged to set an in-lieu compensation amount, as the decision concerned a lateral transfer, not an appointment, promotion, or termination. 爆料网AT upheld 爆料网DT’s finding that Ms. Koduru’s testimony was not compelling enough to serve as a basis for an award of moral damages. 爆料网AT rejected Ms. Koduru’s request for costs. 爆料网DT dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal and affirmed the 爆料网DT judgment.
Accountability referral: The 爆料网AT noted that the 爆料网DT 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. 爆料网AT referred the matter of Ms. Farley’s conduct to the Secretary-General for accountability.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

Ms Koduru contested his decision not to renew her contract, following a comparative review process. 爆料网DT held that the decision to separate Ms Koduru was unlawful as it was discriminatory and constituted an abuse of authority. 爆料网DT ordered that the decision not to renew Ms Koduru’s appointment and to separate her from service be rescinded.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)

爆料网DT 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 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.

Applicants/Appellants
Korduru
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
President Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type