|
|
 |
|
|
Sexual harassment (827,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Sexual harassment
Total judgments found: 24
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 5146
141st Session, 2026
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the FAO’s decisions to impose on him the disciplinary measure of summary dismissal for misconduct, and to include his name in Clear Check, the United Nations (UN) system-wide screening database created to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Judgment 5119
141st Session, 2026
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests ITU’s decision to impose on him the disciplinary measure of dismissal with immediate effect.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
abuse of power; complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Consideration 5
Extract:
"[F]irm and constant precedents have it that the role of the Tribunal is not to assess the evidence itself and determine whether the charge of misconduct has been established beyond reasonable doubt, but rather to assess whether there was evidence available to the relevant decision-maker to reach that conclusion and whether the decision-maker properly applied the standard when evaluating the evidence […].
It is also worth recalling that in Judgment 4579, consideration 4, the Tribunal emphasized that “[it] shall not interfere with the findings of an investigative body in disciplinary proceedings unless there was a manifest error […]” […].
With respect to the burden of proof applicable in disciplinary proceedings, it is furthermore recognized that “the burden of proof rests on an organisation to prove the allegations of misconduct beyond reasonable doubt before a disciplinary sanction can be imposed […]."
Lastly, in respect of harassment matters such as the instant case, established precedent of the Tribunal states that the question as to whether harassment occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the acts or events complained of […].”
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4579
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; harassment; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; standard of proof; standard of proof in disciplinary procedure;
Judgment 5008
140th Session, 2025
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to discharge him on disciplinary grounds.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; disciplinary procedure; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 8
Extract:
The Tribunal’s precedents have it that staff members must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against them, and, under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld on grounds of confidentiality. However, where disciplinary proceedings are brought against officials who have been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused officials, but they must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which they need to defend themselves fully in these proceedings. In order to respect the right of defence, it is sufficient for the officials to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against them and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that they may effectively challenge the probative value thereof […]. In light of the Tribunal’s case law, due process does not necessarily require that the accused staff be provided with the verbatim transcripts of the interviews of the witnesses […]. In conclusion, it was sufficient that the complainant was provided with an accurate written record of the interviews, and this was done.
Keywords:
confidential evidence; confidentiality; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; investigation; sexual harassment; witness;
Consideration 3
Extract:
[N]one of the three alleged victims lodged a complaint. The two emails expressly indicated their subject as limited to “reporting incident + seeking advice”. Nothing more. They cannot be characterized as a complaint enlivening Circular No. 13/2009. In the absence of complaints of harassment within the meaning of the Circular, it was not applicable.
However, this does not mean that, when aware of misconduct amounting to harassment, the Organization cannot take action by its own motion in the absence of a complaint. It is well settled in the case law that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members and that given the serious nature of allegations of harassment, an organization has an obligation to investigate them […]. Moreover, the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context […].
Keywords:
harassment; investigation; opening of an investigation; organisation's duties; sexual harassment;
Judgment 5006
140th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to summarily dismiss him, in particular for alleged sexual harassment and failure to act in compliance with internal rules concerning the use of electronic devices.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; conduct; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Judgment 4964
139th Session, 2025
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision, taken following an investigation, to dismiss her complaint of harassment and sexual harassment against Mr E.
Consideration 21
Extract:
Insofar as further moral damages are concerned, there is evidence concerning the ultimately negative effect on the complainant of the relationship she had with Mr E. including an effect on her health. However, on the material presently before the Tribunal, it cannot be said that this was the result of any possible sexual harassment, given that the Tribunal is unable to determine whether there was such harassment.
Keywords:
harassment; moral damages; sexual harassment;
Considerations 8 and 15
Extract:
The first [element of WIPO’s definitions of harassment and sexual harassment] is that the conduct is unwelcome. […] It is quite conceivable, and consistent with the definition, for conduct to constitute sexual harassment even if other conduct between the harasser and the victim might not be. It is not a question of notionally “averaging out” the conduct of the harasser. No consideration was given by the investigator to this issue of whether any of the communications and conduct more generally of Mr E. was unwelcome. Nor was it considered by the WAB and the Director General […] Why the investigator had recourse to notions such as “unequivocal opposition” is far from clear. Even if the complainant’s approach was equivocal, it does not resolve the question of whether there was sexual harassment.
Keywords:
definition; harassment; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; harassment; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4945
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the FAO’s decision to confirm the allegations of sexual harassment against him, to impose on him a ban from all future employment with the FAO/World Food Programme, to include his name in the United Nations Clear Check screening database for perpetrators of sexual harassment, not to renew his short-term contract following a mandatory break in service, and to place a note in his personnel file confirming this.
Consideration 10
Extract:
If it was open to the FAO/WPF to find the complainant guilty of the misconduct alleged, as it was, then what it decided to do in consequence involved the exercise of a discretionary power. It is not evident at all that the discretionary power miscarried when the FAO/WFP decided to ban the complainant from future employment and to place a note in his personnel file to this effect. Similarly, the discretionary power did not miscarry in relation to causing personal information identifying the complainant to be placed on the United Nations Clear Check screening database, which appears to have been created “to prevent the rehire of perpetrators of sexual harassment”. Many international organisations have a policy of zero tolerance for sexual harassment and it is a legitimate mechanism, even if harsh, to meet that objective by creating a database designed to reveal individuals who have clearly been found to have engaged in such conduct.
Keywords:
decision-maker; disciplinary measure; discretion; personal data; personal file; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; personal file; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4944
139th Session, 2025
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision rejecting her internal appeal in which she contended, among other things, that the investigations conducted and mandated by the World Food Programme into her complaint of rape were ultra vires and that her complaint should instead have been referred to and investigated by national or international judicial authorities.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The complainant further contends that, in the present case, rather than investigating the case, the FAO should have referred it to national or international judicial authorities. This argument is unfounded. As noted above, the applicable legal framework does not compel the FAO to report to the police and national judicial authority facts that allegedly amount to crimes punishable on the basis of the local applicable criminal law. The applicable rules and policies establish that the FAO has the discretionary power to report a breach of national laws to the relevant national authorities on a case-by-case basis. An assessment on a case-by-case basis required, for example, an evaluation, by the Organization, of whether national proceedings might help to ensure a prompt investigation, useful for the purposes of the internal proceedings set up for the protection of the victim and the punishment of the perpetrator. The complainant has not established to the Tribunal’s satisfaction that, in the present case, this discretionary power was exercised unlawfully. She was, in any event, able to report directly to the local police and judicial authority, if she had wanted to.
Keywords:
discretion; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
As to the complainant’s contention that the FAO was not allowed to hire an external investigator for investigating into [an allegation of rape], the Tribunal reiterates that the investigation was administrative in character, and that nothing in the rules prevented the FAO from engaging external investigators. In the circumstances of the case, the hiring of external investigators was reasonable and appropriate, in light of the complexity and of the sensitivity of the case.
Keywords:
investigation; investigative body; sexual harassment;
Consideration 4
Extract:
In her first plea, the complainant alleges that the internal appeal process was unreasonably lengthy, as it took 16 months for the Appeals Committee to review her case plus an additional nine months for the Director General to take the final decision. She requests moral compensation for this delay, in the amount of 60,000 Swiss francs. The Tribunal’s consistent case law holds that the amount of compensation for unreasonable delay in internal proceedings will ordinarily be influenced by at least two considerations. One is the length of the delay and the other is the effect of the delay. These considerations are interrelated, as a lengthy delay may have a greater effect. That latter consideration, the effect of the delay, will usually depend on, amongst other things, the subject matter of the appeal (see Judgments 4804, consideration 5, 4563, consideration 14, 4487, consideration 14, and 3160, considerations 16 and 17). The Tribunal held that an unreasonable delay in an internal appeal by itself is not sufficient to award moral damages. It is also required that the complainant articulate the adverse effects which the delay has caused (see Judgments 4396, consideration 12, 4392, consideration 12, 4231, consideration 15, and 4147, consideration 13). In the present case, the internal appeal was lengthy. In assessing whether the length was unreasonable, it is necessary to have regard to the complexity of the case and to the fact that the appeal process was carried out during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Indeed, the appeal was lodged on 1 July 2019, the Appeals Committee reviewed the case on 4 November 2020 and issued its recommendations on 18 February 2021, and the Director General adopted the final decision on 3 August 2021. But ultimately it is not necessary to evaluate whether the internal appeal was unreasonably lengthy as the complainant has not established that she was adversely affected by the delay. As a result, this plea is unfounded and the claim for monetary compensation for moral injury is rejected.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3160, 4147, 4231, 4392, 4396, 4487, 4563, 4804
Keywords:
delay; harassment; internal appeal; moral damages; moral injury; sexual harassment;
Consideration 6
Extract:
The complainant’s contention that the investigations conducted and mandated by the Organization [into her complaint of rape] were ultra vires and went beyond the scope of an administrative investigation, is misconceived. Firstly, the Tribunal notes that the FAO’s legal framework enshrined a wide definition of sexual harassment, which included rape, and compelled the Organization to promptly and thoroughly investigate reports of sexual assault […] Secondly, the Tribunal notes that pursuant to the relevant provisions of the FAO Staff Rules and Regulations, the fact that deeds of staff members amount to a violation of national laws including crimes as defined by competent national laws, does not impede the FAO from taking action and investigating such deeds as misconduct for the purposes of its internal legal framework. Misconduct may well be relevant and be punishable both by national law and by the legal framework of an international organization. […] [T]he Organization is entitled to carry out an investigation into episodes of sexual harassment, including involving violence or lack of consent, even though such episodes may amount to rape according to the relevant national criminal laws. As a matter of fact, the same deed (here the alleged rape) may be regarded simultaneously as a crime according to the relevant national laws and as misconduct according to the legal framework of an international organization. Accordingly, such a deed may well be the subject matter of a criminal investigation and of internal proceedings (through an investigation into a harassment complaint and potential disciplinary proceedings) in parallel or in sequence, as can be inferred from paragraph 44 of the Standards of Conduct for the International Civil Service, quoted in Section 304 of the FAO Staff Rules and Regulations. The fact that a deed may amount to a crime potentially subject to criminal investigation to be carried out by the competent national authority does not impede an international organization from taking action for the purposes of its internal rules, and, in particular, for the purpose of conducting a prompt and thorough investigation upon a report of harassment/misconduct. There are no internal rules or policies that prevent the FAO from investigating misconduct amounting to a crime, for the purposes and the effects of internal investigation and measures. In such a case, the investigation is not of a criminal nature, and it is carried out without prejudice for further – concurrent, earlier or subsequent – action taken by the competent national authority. Thus, the allegation that, in the present case, the investigations mandated and conducted by WFP were ultra vires and beyond the Organization’s mandate, is unfounded.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; discretion; harassment; investigation; misconduct; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4839
138th Session, 2024
International Organization for Migration
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to reject her sexual harassment claim.
Consideration 11
Extract:
Although in some specific situations the Tribunal may determine whether the harassment occurred (see, for example, Judgments 4241, consideration 15, and 4207, consideration 21), in the present case, the Tribunal is not in a position to determine whether the complainant’s complaint of sexual harassment is well founded, as neither the parties’ written submissions nor the evidence presented before it allow it to do so.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4207, 4241
Keywords:
evidence; judicial review; role of the tribunal; sexual harassment; submissions;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; counsel; disclosure of evidence; due process; flaw; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4837
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who separated from service, contests the placement in his personnel file of a letter stating that he was found to have committed sexual harassment during his employment and that, had he not separated from service, he would have been imposed the disciplinary measure of a final letter of warning.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; former official; sexual harassment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
The complainant’s submission to the effect that the 30 July 2021 letter is contradictory in that it indicates it is both a disciplinary measure […] and not a disciplinary measure at the same time, is […] unfounded. That letter merely informed the complainant that it was determined from the reopened process that he had [committed sexual harassment] and he would have been sanctioned under the applicable rule had he still been a staff member.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; former official; sexual harassment;
Considerations 16-17
Extract:
[The complainant] submits that the Commission was improperly constituted and that its members had a conflict of interest so that they were biased and not impartial. This, he states, is because the members of the panel had already expressed a concluded view in their initial report that he was culpable of the allegation of harassment […] He cites the Tribunal’s statement in consideration 12 of Judgment 2671, that “a reasonable person knowing that a member of [an internal Appeal’s body] had already expressed a concluded view as to the merits of the appeal being considered, would not think that that member would bring an impartial and objective mind to the issues involved [and that] failing an explicit provision in the regulations and rules, the [members] concerned are bound to withdraw if they have already expressed their view on the issue in such a way as to cast doubt on their impartiality” […] The Tribunal notes that […] the members of the Commission did not express a prior view on the issue whether the complainant had [engaged in sexual harassment] to lead to a conclusion that they did not embark upon considering the internal appeal in the reopened investigation with open minds thereby casting doubt on their impartiality and precluding them from considering the latter internal appeal.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2671
Keywords:
composition of the internal appeals body; conflict of interest; harassment; impartiality; internal appeals body; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4835
138th Session, 2024
International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to rescind an offer of employment that had been extended to him, on the basis that he had been disciplined for sexual misconduct.
Considerations 8-10
Extract:
At the time when the […] rescission decision was made, the complainant had been sanctioned twice for breaches of the Code of Conduct and Anti-Harassment Guidelines. Before the 1 May 2020 final letter of warning which was eventually set aside, the complainant had received, on 29 July 2019, a first warning letter, following a preliminary assessment which concluded that he “had failed to accept a female subordinate’s repeated requests to end their personal relationship and had continued to make unwanted contact attempts of a personal or intimate nature, which appeared to have made the female subordinate in question uncomfortable and to have created an offensive working environment.” Therefore, the mention of “reference checks [...] [which] revealed that [the complainant] ha[d] been sanctioned for sexual misconduct” in the […] rescission decision can be regarded as covering the 29 July 2019 warning letter issued to the complainant, which alone provided a sufficient legal basis for IFRC to decide to rescind the conditional employment offer that had been extended to him on 26 June 2020. […] The complainant’s argument […] that a warning letter cannot be used to rescind an employment offer since it is “the second least serious disciplinary sanction open to the Secretary General” is also unfounded. The Tribunal considers that the complainant’s conduct underlying the 29 July 2019 warning letter is likely to have compromised the trust between him and the Federation, regardless of the type of disciplinary measure which was ultimately imposed […] [T]he Federation withdrew the conditional offer of employment based on a reference check revealing that the complainant had been sanctioned for sexual misconduct, which it was entitled to do as part of the exercise of its discretionary power.
Keywords:
appointment; conduct; disciplinary measure; discretion; offer withdrawn; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; offer withdrawn; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4579
135th Session, 2023
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to discharge him.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; disciplinary measure; reinstatement; sexual harassment;
Judgment 4207
129th Session, 2020
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the Director General’s decision to endorse the conclusion of the Office of Internal Oversight Services that it was unable to make a conclusive determination on her sexual harassment claim and to reject her related request for damages.
Consideration 20
Extract:
Having regard to the distinction mentioned in consideration 14 [of the judgment] between a claim of harassment and a report of misconduct based on an allegation of harassment, the DDG-MT’s decision concerning the complainant’s claim of harassment is fundamentally flawed. The DDG-MT proceeded on the assumption that an allegation of harassment by the aggrieved staff member must not only be borne out by specific acts, the burden of proof being on the reporter of the harassment, but must also prove that the alleged perpetrator of the harassment acted with intent. This in turn resulted in the DDG-MT incorrectly applying the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard of proof in his consideration of the complainant’s claim of harassment. It is noted that the Tribunal has specifically rejected this assumption that intent on the part of the alleged perpetrator is required in order to establish harassment (see, for example, Judgments 2524, consideration 25, 3233, consideration 6, and 3692, consideration 18, and the case law cited therein). The Tribunal’s case law states that the applicable standard of proof for a finding of harassment in a case such as this is not “beyond a reasonable doubt” but a less onerous standard (see Judgment 3725, consideration 14).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524, 3233, 3692, 3725
Keywords:
harassment; intention of parties; sexual harassment; standard of proof;
Consideration 18
Extract:
The Tribunal concludes that the IAEA could have and should have given the complainant a decision regarding her complaint of harassment within a reasonable time following the completion of the investigation [...]. Rather than reacting promptly in relation to the complainant’s claim of harassment, the Administration held this claim in abeyance pending the completion of the Appendix G procedure and a determination as to whether misconduct was committed. The fact that the Appendix G procedures were still ongoing did not in any way preclude the IAEA from responding to the complainant’s claim of harassment.
Keywords:
harassment; inquiry; investigation; misconduct; reasonable time; sexual harassment;
Consideration 21
Extract:
Taking into account the OIOS’s conclusion that based on its findings [...] that the complainant’s complaint of sexual harassment was credible and made in good faith; that no finding was made regarding the credibility of Mr A.’s denials; that a decision was made that Mr A. would be warned about his “behaviour”; and notwithstanding the fact that there was no independent witness present during the incidents, which is not uncommon and does not undermine the credibility of the complaint, the Tribunal finds that the complaint of sexual harassment is substantiated.
Keywords:
harassment; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; en banc review; plenary judgment; sexual harassment;
Consideration 14
Extract:
A claim of harassment and a report of misconduct based on an allegation of harassment are distinct and separate matters. A claim of harassment is a claim addressed to the organization the resolution of which only involves two parties, the organization and the reporter of the harassment. In contrast, a report of alleged misconduct, based on an allegation of harassment, triggers the Appendix G procedures, a process that is directed at the culpability of the staff member in question and potentially the imposition of a disciplinary measure. In this process, the two parties are the organization and the staff member in question. In this process, the reporter of the misconduct, a potential victim of the harassment, is a witness and not a party in the proceedings.
Keywords:
disciplinary procedure; harassment; misconduct; sexual harassment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
It is observed that there are no specific provisions in the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules that articulate a comprehensive procedure to deal with a claim of harassment of the type first discussed in the preceding consideration. In the absence of a lawful comprehensive procedure within the IAEA’s Staff Regulations and Staff Rules to deal with a claim of harassment, the IAEA had to respond to the complainant’s claim of harassment in accordance with the Tribunal’s relevant case law. It is well settled in the case law that an international organization has a duty to provide a safe and adequate working environment for its staff members (see Judgment 2706, consideration 5, citing Judgment 2524). As well, “given the serious nature of a claim of harassment, an international organization has an obligation to initiate the investigation itself [...]” (see Judgment 3347, consideration 14). Moreover, the investigation must be initiated promptly, conducted thoroughly and the facts must be determined objectively and in their overall context. Upon the conclusion of the investigation, the complainant is entitled to a response from the Administration regarding the claim of harassment. Additionally, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 2706, consideration 5, “an international organisation is liable for all the injuries caused to a staff member by their supervisor acting in the course of his or her duties, when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to his or her personal and professional dignity” (see also Judgments 1609, consideration 16, 1875, consideration 32, and 3170, consideration 33). Thus, an international organization must take proper actions to protect a victim of harassment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1609, 1875, 2524, 2706, 3170, 3347
Keywords:
applicable law; case law; harassment; sexual harassment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
[T]he IAEA takes the position that having regard to the OIOS’s operational independence, as provided in the OIOS Charter, the Director General was constrained by the findings and conclusions of the OIOS Report and by the standard of proof necessary to establish harassment identified by OIOS, namely, beyond a reasonable doubt. It is convenient to address this submission at this point. It is observed that the operational independence of OIOS, as provided for in the OIOS Charter, concerns the independence of its internal operations. It does not in any way constrain or implicate the Director General’s decision-making authority nor does it preclude judicial review of the OIOS’s findings and conclusions underpinning a Director General’s final decision. Accordingly, this submission is unfounded.
Keywords:
final decision; harassment; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 3640
122nd Session, 2016
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the disciplinary measure of his summary dismissal in the wake of a sexual harassment complaint filed against him by one of his colleagues.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; disciplinary measure; en banc review; plenary judgment; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Consideration 9
Extract:
As far as the IOS investigation is concerned, the complainant’s main contention is that this service lacks the requisite expertise, because it has little experience in dealing with sexual harassment cases. But the mere fact that the annual number of investigations which IOS has to conduct in this field is indeed very low does not justify such criticism. In this case, [...] the investigation was entrusted to an investigator who was specialised in harassment cases, and there are no grounds for doubting that person’s competence in this field.
Keywords:
inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 14
Extract:
[T]he complainant submits that the facts considered in these proceedings should have been confined to those directly concerning Ms M. and that it was therefore wrong also to take account of allegations related to his behaviour towards other persons. However, contrary to what the Appeals Board seems to believe, in the context of an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint, it is by no means abnormal that the investigations conducted with a view to ascertaining the truth of the statements contained in the complaint should be widened to encompass other similar behaviour on the part of the alleged harasser. In fact, that is often the best means of corroborating the allegations of the complainant in an area where [...] it may be impossible to produce material evidence. More generally, it should be recalled that the question of whether or not harassment has occurred must be determined in the light of a careful examination of all the objective circumstances surrounding the events complained of by the alleged victim (see Judgments 2553, under 6, in fine, 3166, under 16, in fine, or 3233, under 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2553, 3166, 3233
Keywords:
evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
In addition, although the other acts taken into consideration had not led to the lodging of harassment complaints – in many cases this may be explained by the inherent risks of making an accusation against a supervisor – this did not pose a legal obstacle to their being taken into account. All that mattered here was that these acts had actually occurred, irrespective of the action which might have been taken on them at an earlier stage. The fact that they did not lead to the lodging of a complaint does not make them any less relevant as evidence corroborating the allegations of Ms M. (see, in respect of this latter point, Judgment 2521, under 10, in fine). The reprehensible conduct of an international civil servant may well give rise to a disciplinary measure taken by the employing organisation on its own initiative, regardless of whether one of his or her colleagues files a complaint. Item 11.3 of the Human Resources Manual, on disciplinary procedure, expressly provides for such a step, and in this connection the defendant organisation rightly points out that item 18.2, paragraph 5(d), of the Manual makes the management of UNESCO responsible for “resolving all instances of harassment as soon as it becomes aware of them, even if there are no formal complaints”. Since, in the instant case, acts of harassment concerning persons other than Ms M. had been expressly mentioned in the memorandum of the Director of the Bureau of Human Resources Management of 3 November 2011 notifying the complainant of the charges against him, in this respect the procedure followed bears no criticism.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2521
Keywords:
evidence; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Considerations 17-21
Extract:
[T]he complainant contends with greater cogency that he was never provided with the full content of the witness statements forming the basis of the accusations against him, nor was he informed of the witnesses’ names. It is true that the witness statements were not appended to the report drawn up at the end of the investigation and, as mentioned in a footnote in that document, the identity of the witnesses was deliberately not disclosed. [...]
[T]his strict observance of confidentiality by UNESCO might be seen as departing from the Tribunal’s established case law according to which “a staff member must, as a general rule, have access to all evidence on which the authority bases (or intends to base) its decision against him” and, “under normal circumstances, such evidence cannot be withheld [by this authority] on the grounds of confidentiality” (see Judgment 2229, under 3(b)), to which Judgment 3295, under 13, refers). [...]
[W]here disciplinary proceedings are brought against an official who has been accused of harassment, testimonies and other materials which are deemed to be confidential pursuant to provisions aimed at protecting third parties need not be forwarded to the accused official, but she or he must nevertheless be informed of the content of these documents in order to have all the information which she or he needs to defend herself or himself fully in these proceedings. As the Tribunal has already had occasion to state, in order to respect the rights of defence, it is sufficient for the official to have been informed precisely of the allegations made against her or him and of the content of testimony taken in the course of the investigation, in order that she or he may effectively challenge the probative value thereof (see Judgment 2771, under 18).
In the instant case, the investigation report contained an extremely detailed description of all the instances of unwelcome behaviour by the complainant towards the 21 women identified as victims of his conduct, and their names were given in almost all cases. The complainant was therefore plainly apprised of the content of all the testimony taken during the investigation and of the e-mails which he had not been allowed to see. Furthermore, although, as stated above, the identity of the witnesses was not revealed to him, it is obvious that most of the information recorded in the report could only have come from the 21 persons concerned themselves. The complainant was therefore given a real opportunity to dispute the various items of evidence gathered in the course of proceedings against him. Moreover, it is clear from the above-mentioned comments which he submitted to the Organization on 18 November 2011 to rebut the charges of which he had been notified, that he had in fact been able to prepare them without any particular difficulty. Indeed, he himself described these comments as “clarifications and objections to the accusations of sexual harassment against [him], based on the whole file, and in particular on the IOS investigation report”.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2229, 2771, 3295
Keywords:
adversarial proceedings; confidential evidence; disciplinary procedure; due process; evidence; harassment; inquiry; investigation; right to be heard; sexual harassment; witness;
Considerations 29-31
Extract:
The disciplinary authority within an international organisation has a discretion to choose the disciplinary measure imposed on an official for misconduct. However, its decision must always respect the principle of proportionality which applies in this area.
In the present case, the Tribunal considers that the acts of sexual harassment of which the complainant was accused are undeniably serious on account of their nature and their repetition. Moreover, it is clear from the evidence in the file that their gravity is exacerbated by two particular circumstances which must be emphasised here. First, it appears from the investigation report, inter alia, that many of the persons subjected by the complainant to the unwelcome behaviour in question were young women who did not hold a permanent appointment and who were therefore in a precarious situation which made it difficult for them to protest, let alone report it, especially as the complainant often had the power to influence the progress of their career. Secondly, it is plain from the file that, [...] after protests from several of his colleagues, the complainant had received various warnings about the inappropriate nature of his conduct. Thus, even assuming that the complainant had not instinctively realised it, he could not thereafter have been unaware that his behaviour towards the women who had to work alongside him was perceived by them to be improper, offensive and extremely unpleasant. This did not, however, prevent him from repeating his reprehensible conduct on many occasions, since further incidents occurred [...].
Having regard to these various considerations, and even though the complainant’s record of service with the Organization was otherwise excellent, the Tribunal finds that, in this case, the Director-General did not adopt a disproportionate disciplinary measure when she decided on the complainant’s summary dismissal for serious misconduct.
Keywords:
disciplinary measure; proportionality; sexual harassment; summary dismissal;
Judgment 3413
119th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully impugns the decision to dismiss her appeal against the rejection of her sexual harassment complaint.
Consideration 10
Extract:
Sexual harassment of a staff member in the workplace is a serious violation of her or his rights and is all the more egregious if the harassment is by a senior staff member. An apparently bona fide complaint of sexual harassment has to be investigated promptly and thoroughly. Equally it has to be reinvestigated if circumstances warrant further investigation. In the present case, the IAEA’s failure to reinvestigate involves a serious breach of its duty towards the complainant. Even if the sexual harassment had not occurred, the pursuit of the allegation would doubtless have been traumatic for the complainant. The trauma would have been compounded by the failure to reopen the investigation as she requested. Of course if the sexual harassment had occurred then almost certainly the trauma caused by the failure to reopen the investigation is likely to have been significant. In the Tribunal’s view, the complainant is entitled to moral damages of substance. They are assessed in the sum of 20,000 euros.
Keywords:
moral injury; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; sexual harassment;
Judgment 3400
119th Session, 2015
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant successfully challenges the decision in relation to the FAO's response to her harassment claim and her performance appraisal for 2009.
Consideration 7
Extract:
Whether behaviour is improper or not depends on the content of the behaviour, not intention. At least ordinarily, whether the behaviour is directed at and whether it is offensive to another person does not, again, depend on intention or at least an intention to harass. Also the definition allows for the possibility that the person engaging in the improper behaviour did not know it was offensive but ought reasonably to have known. At least in this latter circumstance, intention would be irrelevant. These comments broadly correspond with the jurisprudence of the Tribunal on the question of mobbing (see, for example, Judgment 2524, consideration 25).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2524
Keywords:
harassment; intention of parties; sexual harassment;
Judgment 3142
113th Session, 2012
Energy Charter Conference
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 10
Extract:
As the complainant does not directly challenge the findings of the ad hoc board, it is unnecessary to say more than that, in the absence of findings as to the specific conduct involved, a finding that a supervisor neither “knew [n]or ought to have known” that his conduct was unwelcome, even though that conduct is “assumed” to be improper and was directed to a subordinate who found it unwelcome, raises more questions than it answers. More particularly is that so as the test is not whether a person ought to have known, as stated by the board, but whether he “ought reasonably to have known” – a test that requires an objective evaluation of the conduct involved. However, it must be noted that the board did not find that the complainant made false allegations. Indeed and although it did not find that her claims were true, it did not find that any of them were false. And subject only to the question whether her supervisor knew or ought reasonably to have known that his conduct was unwelcome, his alleged statements as to the complainant’s clothing and appearance were capable of being categorised as sexual harassment.
Keywords:
harassment; sexual harassment;
Consideration 15
Extract:
Quite apart from the wrongful linking of the renewal of the complainant’s contract to the outcome of her complaint of harassment, the report of the ad hoc board did not justify the course taken. There is nothing to suggest that the complainant withdrew any of the specific claims made by her on 25 July 2009 and, as already noted, some of those claims were capable of being categorised as sexual harassment. Moreover, the board did not find that any of the claims were false. Further, although the board stated that it had come to the conclusion in its interview with the complainant that she “was withdrawing her claims of sexual harassment”, its ultimate conclusion was that “she did not pursue” these claims, a course which is entirely explicable in view of the absence of any reference to “sexual harassment” in the Terms of Reference. So far as concerns the claim of harassment generally, the Secretary-General committed an error of law in treating the situation as “serious” on the basis that there had been a finding that harassment had not occurred. It is entirely proper to treat as serious a situation where it is subsequently found that an allegation of harassment has no factual basis. In that situation, there has been a false accusation. In the present case, the ad hoc board found that there was a factual basis to the complainant’s claim, albeit without identifying the precise conduct involved. It found that there had been no harassment solely on the basis that the complainant’s supervisor neither knew nor ought to have known that his conduct – conduct that the Secretary-General said that he deplored – was unwelcome. And it did so simply on the basis that she had not told him so. Where behaviour is such as to satisfy all the elements in the definition of “harassment”, save knowledge on the part of the perpetrator, it is entirely proper for a staff member to make a claim of harassment. And a decision not to renew that staff member’s contract on the ground that a complaint of harassment, although properly made, was not sustained because the perpetrator neither knew nor ought reasonably to have known his conduct was unwelcome gives rise to an inference of retaliation. More particularly is that so where, as here, the contract of the person who engaged in the conduct concerned was renewed quite independently of the outcome of the investigation and the only real criticism that could be made of the person whose contract was not renewed was that she did not make her feelings known and did not make an “earlier attempt to resolve difficulties [...] in a less confrontational manner”.
Keywords:
fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; retaliation; sexual harassment;
Judgment 3085
112th Session, 2012
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; performance evaluation; retaliation; sexual harassment;
Considerations 29, 30 and 33
Extract:
As to the complainant’s allegations of sexual harassment, the Panel found that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding of sexual harassment. The Director-General accepted this finding; however, she elaborated further in connection with an incident that occurred at a team meeting to discuss an upcoming training session that would involve a condom demonstration. According to the complainant, when she enquired whether a wooden model would be available for the demonstration, Dr V. replied that she could demonstrate on him. The Director-General noted that the incident occurred in a relaxed friendly atmosphere and that Dr V.’s comment was not directed at the complainant or at anyone else. However, in her view, the comment was in poor taste, showed a lack of good judgement and had no place in a working environment. She added that she would deal with Dr V. in a separate letter to him.
Whether the complainant’s account or Dr V.’s account as to what transpired at the meeting is accepted, the comment by any standard was offensive and goes beyond being simply a matter of poor taste and bad judgement and amounts to sexual harassment for which the complainant is entitled to moral damages. [...]
She is also entitled to moral damages for the affront to her dignity occasioned by AFRO’s conduct during the course of her probation and for the incident of sexual harassment referred to in considerations 29 and 30. For these matters the Tribunal will award a global amount of 20,000 dollars.
Keywords:
moral injury; sexual harassment;
Judgment 2771
106th Session, 2009
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 14
Extract:
"In support of his argument that he was denied due process by the [Investigation] Panel the complainant relies on Judgment 2254 where it was said that, "before deciding a disciplinary sanction, an organisation should inform the person concerned that disciplinary proceedings have been initiated and should allow him ample opportunity to take part in adversarial proceedings, in the course of which he is given the opportunity to express his point of view, put forward evidence and participate in the processing of the evidence submitted in support of the charges against him". That statement relates to the situation where disciplinary proceedings have been initiated. However, and as its name suggests, the function of the Panel was to investigate. Contrary to the arguments of the complainant, the requirement that it "assess the reliability of the source or sources of information and the evidence submitted" does not render it a judicial body. The assessment of the reliability of evidence is a function that is properly described as "judicial" only when reposed in a judicial body."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2254
Keywords:
appraisal of evidence; disciplinary procedure; evidence; evidence during investigation; inquiry; investigation; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
case sent back to organisation; complaint allowed; decision quashed; disciplinary measure; sexual harassment;
Consideration 5
Extract:
Before dealing further with the complainant’s arguments, it is convenient to refer to the content of the Policy. The Policy defines “harassment” as meaning:
“any improper behaviour by an FAO staff member […] that is directed at, and is offensive to, another individual and which that staff member knew or ought reasonably to have known would be unwelcome. It comprises objectionable conduct or comment made on either a one-time or continuous basis that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment to an individual.”
There are then set out examples of harassment, including “degrading public tirades by a supervisor or colleague”. Additionally, the definition sets out what is included in the notion of “sexual harassment”. It is unnecessary to refer to those examples as it is clear that, if the incident in the hallway of the hotel in Honduras occurred, it constitutes sexual harassment. However, the complainant challenges the finding in relation to the incident in San Salvador on the basis that the FAO held a single incident to constitute harassment, whereas the definition refers to “public tirades”. This argument must be rejected. The definition allows that harassment may consist of a single objectionable act that demeans or causes embarrassment. The alleged incidents in the hotel lobby in San Salvador and in the hallway of the hotel in Honduras satisfy that test.
Keywords:
evidence; sexual harassment;
Consideration 23
Extract:
As is usual in relation to events of the kind alleged to have occurred in the hallway of the hotel in Honduras, the only direct evidence was that of the subordinate herself. The charge in relation to this matter depended on her credibility and that of the complainant. To some extent, the subordinate’s credibility was bolstered by evidence that she reported the incident to her husband in a telephone call the next morning. That evidence, albeit that there were no independent witnesses, was sufficient to support the finding of sexual harassment.
Keywords:
evidence; sexual harassment;
Consideration 2
Extract:
The first two charges of harassment upon which the finding of unsatisfactory conduct was based related to events which, according to the subordinate, occurred during a mission which she and the complainant undertook in Latin America in November 2003. The subordinate claimed that, during the mission, the complainant began complimenting her on her clothing and physical appearance, arranged hotel reservations so that they would have rooms on the same floor, suggested on most evenings that she join him in his room for a drink and alluded most mornings to the fact that she had slept alone. She claimed that, on 16 November 2003 in San Salvador, the complainant became agitated when he did not find her in her room, arranged for hotel staff to open her room and shouted at her in the hotel lobby in front of everyone. The second event occurred, according to the subordinate, in Honduras on 18 November 2003 when the complainant embraced and kissed her in the hallway of their hotel. [...]
Keywords:
evidence; sexual harassment;
Judgment 2706
104th Session, 2008
World Intellectual Property Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Considerations 3-7
Extract:
Contrary to the Organization’s assertions, the evidence on file shows that it has been established that the acts of sexual harassment which the complainant denounced while she was working in the Finance Division between September 2001 and March 2003 did in fact take place.
Paragraph 25 of the Appeal Board’s report indicates that the reality of these acts had been corroborated by the testimony of four other persons who were interviewed by the Board, and that it is also clearly borne out by documents placed in the personal files of the complainant and her former supervisor by the Human Resources Management Department. Moreover, in imposing a disciplinary sanction on the complainant’s supervisor on account of these acts of sexual harassment, the Organization necessarily acknowledged that they had occurred. Consequently, it cannot now dispute the merits of the complainant’s accusations in this respect without completely contradicting itself and casting major doubts on whether its own decisions regarding its staff are taken in a responsible manner in such a sensitive area as that of discipline. Given the nature and seriousness of the acts in question, the Organization’s reaction to the complainant after she had denounced this sexual harassment was not at all consonant with the duties of any international organisation towards its staff. Firstly, it must be emphasised that, as the Tribunal held in Judgment 2524, an international organisation has a duty to provide a safe and adequate environment for its staff. In the present case, the complainant was plainly not provided with such an environment during the period in which she was the victim of her supervisor’s advances. In addition, as the Tribunal pointed out in Judgments 1609 and 1875, an international organisation is liable for all the injuries caused to a staff member by their supervisor acting in the course of his or her duties, when the victim is subjected to treatment that is an affront to his or her personal and professional dignity. It must be noted that the complainant in this instance has not received any form of compensation from the Organization for the injuries caused by the acts of sexual harassment in question. Secondly, the Tribunal can only express its astonishment at the administrative action taken by the Organization in response to the denunciation of these acts. The sanction imposed on the supervisor against whom the allegations of harassment were primarily directed – which, as was stated above, was confined to a verbal reprimand and the placing of a note in his file – was clearly not commensurate with the seriousness of his misconduct. What is more, after this sanction the person in question retained his duties with no questions asked. Furthermore, the Organization does not dispute the fact that this supervisor’s performance appraisal covering the period during which he was subjected to disciplinary action was favourable in all respects, including his conduct. The Organization’s behaviour towards this official shows little regard for the duty of care that it owed to the victim of the acts of which he was accused, and the Organization’s argument that it could not have written a less favourable report without punishing the person concerned twice for the same acts bears the mark of bad faith. Lastly, the Tribunal cannot fail to be struck by the contrast between the extreme indulgence thus shown to the
complainant’s former supervisor and the rather harsh attitude adopted at the same time towards the complainant. Not only did she not receive any form of compensation, as was stated above, but after the meeting called by the
Director General on 10 March 2003 it was cavalierly decided to transfer her to another service. It was therefore she who bore the brunt of the adverse practical consequences of the situation created by the case against her supervisor. As the Tribunal stated in Judgment 2067, it is incumbent upon any international organisation to treat staff members with dignity and to avoid causing them unnecessary injury. It is clear from the foregoing that when the complainant denounced the sexual harassment of which she was the victim, WIPO failed in its duty towards a member of its staff.
Keywords:
sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; sexual harassment;
Judgment 2645
103rd Session, 2007
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Consideration 5
Extract:
[T]he complainant, in her appeal to the Director-General, the rejection of which prompted her to submit the matter to the Appeals Committee, merely requested that the disciplinary measure of suspension be revoked and that she be reinstated in the Organization. In her appeal she asked the Committee to rule that the penalties imposed on her were unlawful. It would therefore appear that during the internal proceedings she filed no specific claim for damages for an injury due to the sexual harassment she claimed to have suffered, although she dwelt at length on her allegations of sexual harassment and attributes the reprisals by her supervisor to her having reported them.
The Tribunal therefore considers that any claim for damages for the injury that the complainant allegedly suffered as a result of sexual harassment constitutes an extension of the scope of the claims filed during the internal appeal proceedings and is therefore irreceivable pursuant to Article VII(1) of the Tribunal’s Statute inasmuch as the complainant has not exhausted the internal means of redress (see, inter alia, Judgement 1380, under 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1380
Keywords:
moral injury; new plea; sexual harassment;
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint allowed; decision quashed; fixed-term; non-renewal of contract; sexual harassment;
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the case law, “[a]ny organisation that is serious about deterring sexual harassment and consequential abuse of authority by a superior officer must be seen to take proper action. In particular victims of such behaviour must feel confident that it will take their allegations seriously and not let them be victimised on that account” (see Judgment 1376, under 19).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1376
Keywords:
sexual harassment;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
