±¬ÁÏÍø

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...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT¡¯s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace...

The ±¬ÁÏÍøAT held that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT acted correctly by conducting a judicial review of the case.

It found that the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT properly assessed the credibility of the witnesses who testified before it and correctly relied on the credible testimony of Ms. V, who had no motive to lie, to conclude that it had been established by clear and convincing evidence that the former staff member had sexually harassed her by making comments of a sexual nature in May and December 2020.While Ms. V¡¯s testimony alone would have been sufficient in this context, the ±¬ÁÏÍøAT noted that it was corroborated by colleagues who were...

On delegation on authority, the Respondent argued that the presumption of regularity avoids the need for proof absent a prima facie case. This argument is entirely correct. The Respondent was required to and submitted email correspondence between the ASG/OHRM and the USG/DMSPC regarding this case. In that correspondence, the ASG/OHRM attaches her recommendation to impose a disciplinary sanction on the Applicant, along with a ¡°detailed analysis in the body to the recommendation.¡± In response, the USG/DMSPC writes¡°Recommendation approved.¡± The Tribunal was therefore convinced that the contested...

The Tribunal decided to dismiss the application.

In the light of the facts established and the finding of misconduct, the three allegations mentioned in the sanctioning letter, relating to ¡®sexual molestation¡¯, constitute ¡®serious misconduct¡¯ under the terms of paragraph (b) of Staff Regulation 10.1. In addition, under paragraph (a) of Rule 10.2 of the Staff Rules, on the basis of which the sanction was imposed, dismissal is a possibility.

Dismissal is one of the most severe sanctions that can be imposed in an administrative or employment matter. However, a more lenient sanction would leave open...

It consistently follows from AA¡¯s responses, or lack thereof, to the Applicant¡¯s many texts on the proposed ¡°bet¡± that he found these messages unwelcome. For instance, AA wrote to the Applicant that: ¡°Still on that topic man?¡±; ¡°I value my dignity more than $2.000¡±; ¡°I do not bet¡±; ¡°I thought it was a really stupid bet haha I would never [force you to pay] me, but you have kept bringing it up 1298548065908 times. That is why I say that if you continue with that emotional topic, I will send you my ±¬ÁÏÍøFCU account and that is it¡±; ¡°The bet. Now, man, stop the subject. It is over¡±. Despite this...

Applicant¡¯s request for anonymization

The Tribunal found that the instant case is not comparable to AAE 2023-±¬ÁÏÍøAT-1332 as the Applicant only refers to the¡°harm this case has caused¡± him and the ¡°sensitive information¡± referred to in the case without providing further reasons for the Tribunal to deviate from the principles of transparency and accountability. Therefore, the Applicant¡¯s motion was denied.

Receivability

The Tribunal clarified that the Applicant's reassignment to a post reflecting his new P-5 level after demotion is a separate administrative decision for which the Applicant did not...

The Appeals Tribunal found that in its rigid treatment of the evidence in relation to AAY¡¯s conduct, the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT failed to have appropriate regard to what had been admitted to by AAY when interviewed by OIOS. The fact that AAY chose not to testify at the ±¬ÁÏÍøDT hearing made it clear that he stood by his statement to the OIOS investigators. The ±¬ÁÏÍøDT was required to consider this undisputed evidence from him in its assessment whether the misconduct against him had been proved, more so in circumstances in which he did not elect to testify further in his own defence. The fact that the three witnesses...

The Tribunal DECIDES that the Application is rejected.

Considering the lack of any direct evidence before the Tribunal as the alleged victim declined to provide witness testimony, it found that the Respondent had not managed to prove with clear and convincing evidence, or even with the preponderance of evidence, the factual allegations leading to the USG/DMSPC¡¯s conclusion that the Applicant had sexually harassed her. In the same vein, the Respondent also failed to demonstrate that the Applicant created a hostile work environment for her.

Whereas the Applicant¡¯s actions and behavior were not up to the standard to be expected of a supervisor...