±¬ÁÏÍø

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the former staff member committed sexual harassment towards the Complainant by: i) entering her accommodation without invitation, hugging, kissing, and licking her forehead without her consent, reclining her on her bed to lie next to him, and refusing to leave when asked; and ii) telling her the following day that she had been unable to sleep because she had been thinking of him.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had provided a clear and reasoned analysis of the witnesses¡¯ credibility.It concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s determination that certain discrepancies in the Complainant¡¯s...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT observed that the Secretary-General elected to limit the scope of his appeal only against the findings of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT with respect to two of nine instances of alleged misconduct by the former staff member. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further acknowledged that the Secretary-General¡¯s contention was that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in law when it applied the legal tests for harassment and sexual harassment to the two incidents.

Nonetheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that to determine the issue on appeal required more than simply an application of the correct legal test. To reach any conclusions requires more than simply regard to...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in finding that ATR¡¯s claim for compensation as a victim of sexual harassment was not receivable because the contested administrative decision did not concern compensation and the applicable legal framework does not provide for such entitlement. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that while Article 10(5)(b) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute allows for compensation for harm, this remedy must relate to the administrative decision under review, which in this case concerned disclosure of disciplinary measures, not compensation.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT further held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT exceeded its jurisdiction in...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly exercised its discretion in excluding the former staff member¡¯s allegations of racism within the CAF and his claim that his counsel was treated unfairly during the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing, as well as in denying his request to call the investigator to testify. Nevertheless, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT concluded that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT erred in finding that the facts underlying the alleged misconduct had been proven by clear and convincing evidence, particularly in its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.

Regarding V01¡¯s allegations, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT improperly explained away...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT did not err in concluding that the Administration lawfully imposed the disciplinary measure of demotion by one grade with deferment for three years of promotion eligibility and gender?sensitivity training. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT correctly applied the governing legal framework, including Staff Rule 1.2(f) and ST/SGB/2008/5, in determining that the staff member¡¯s conduct, an inappropriate remark referencing nudity and a stroking gesture, physical intimidation of a colleague, and leering at female staff, constituted sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

The...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that Article 9(4) of the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT Statute regarding the nature of the judicial review that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT conducts in disciplinary cases did not apply to the instant case as it was adopted after the hearing was held. The parties presented their evidence, including a chronology of agreed facts as well as live testimony, and made their respective post-hearing submissions, under a legal framework where Article 9(4) was not operative and it would be inappropriate, and a denial of due process, to apply a new evidentiary framework at the point of decision, ex post facto.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not failed to exercise jurisdiction nor committed an error in procedure. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not exceeded its broad discretion in overruling the objections of the staff member¡¯s counsel when it permitted additional questions by the Secretary-General¡¯s counsel and, in any event, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s ruling had no material or prejudicial impact on the outcome of the case.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had not erred in finding that the picture the staff member had sent to the complainant had been of an explicit sexual and even pornographic character. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT affirmed the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s decision to dismiss the former staff member¡¯s request for anonymity, as he had ignored the deadline set by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in an Order.

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT found that the former staff member committed sexual exploitation by engaging in a romantic and sexual relationship with a vulnerable refugee, who put herself in danger in engaging in a premarital relationship with him. He abused his position of trust by promising to marry her to persuade her to have sexual relations with him. When she pushed him about his promises, he threatened her with an investigation that could result in the...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence. It held that the Complainant¡¯s testimony was consistent with her earlier statements, except for the date of the incident. However, the correction of the date she made at the hearing was found to be in good faith and did not undermine her credibility. Her account was corroborated by two other staff members, M.V. and M.M., both of whom testified before the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT. The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT also held that the former staff member failed to show that these witnesses had any motive to falsely implicate him. It noted that the former...