Prejudice (926,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Prejudice
Total judgments found: 13

• Judgment 4856

  
  138th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to dismiss him for misconduct.

  Consideration 14

  Extract:

  In its well-reasoned opinion, the Committee correctly concluded (and the Director-General confirmed in the impugned decision) that due process was observed during the OIGI’s investigation, noting that the complainant had been interviewed and given the opportunity to test the evidence. This is apparent from the information contained in consideration 1 of this judgment. The Committee also concluded, correctly in the Tribunal’s view, and as the Director-General accepted in the impugned decision, the fact that OIGI did not interview persons whom the complainant mentioned during his interview, notably, the two brothers or the CEO of the Political Party, did not violate due process because the complainant had not shown that not interviewing them caused him prejudice.

  Keywords:

  adversarial proceedings; due process; evidence; investigation; prejudice; witness;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4855

  
  138th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Mr P. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; bias; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4854

  
  138th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.

  Consideration 18

  Extract:

  Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Ms C. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4852

  
  138th Session, 2024
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment, by lateral transfer, of another official to the position of Director, FAO Liaison Office in Geneva.

  Considerations 12, 14-15

  Extract:

  What the complainant is arguing is, in substance, that in appointing Ms R.B. the Director-General was making a choice between her and the complainant (and perhaps others), and the failure to choose him was infected by, amongst other things, bias and prejudice towards him. The difficulty with this argument is that there is no direct evidence that such a choice was being made nor can an inference reasonably be drawn that it was.
  […]
  As the Tribunal observed in Judgment 4690, consideration 13, when addressing the statement made by the Tribunal in Judgment 3669, consideration 12, and similar cases regarding the reliance on earlier evidence of bias and prejudice to prove the true character of alleged bias and prejudice in later conduct:
  “There is probably no overarching principle which will determine the admissibility of evidence concerning earlier events in every case. At least in a case such as the present, the question of admissibility should be determined by reference to the specific facts of the case.”
  In this case, the evidence of the complainant and the arguments based on it about prior bias and prejudice is not, in the circumstances, relevant to the legality of the decision to transfer Ms R.B. There was no choice being made of the type on which the complainant’s arguments rely. Accordingly, much of the argument of the complainant is not founded and lacks any admissible evidentiary underpinning.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4690
  

  Keywords:

  appointment without competition; bias; burden of proof; evidence; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4841

  
  138th Session, 2024
  International Organization for Migration
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decisions to abolish the post she used to hold and not to renew her contract beyond 31 December 2020.

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  The Tribunal notes that bias, prejudice, and bad faith cannot be presumed, they must be proven and the complainant bears the burden of proof (see Judgment 4688, consideration 10, and the case law cited therein). Although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve complainants, who bear the burden of proving their allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where, as here, the actions of the organization, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see Judgment 4745, consideration 12).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 4688, 4745
  

  Keywords:

  bad faith; bias; burden of proof; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4690

  
  136th Session, 2023
  Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to uphold his transfer to Budapest.

  Considerations 12-13

  Extract:

  It may be accepted that the Tribunal has recognised, at least in relation to certain classes of cases, that evidence of earlier conduct which precedes the conduct actually the subject matter of the complaint, may be relied on to prove the true character of the later and impugned conduct. An obvious example is a case involving an allegation of harassment. The Tribunal has accepted that in such a case the evidence of earlier conduct is admissible (see Judgments 4601, consideration 8, 4288, consideration 3, 4286, consideration 17, 4253, consideration 5, and 4233, consideration 3). But the purpose of that evidence is to enable the correct characterization, if it is in issue, of the impugned conduct. The same can happen in cases where bias and prejudice are alleged (see Judgment 3669, consideration 2).
  There is probably no overarching principle which will determine the admissibility of evidence concerning earlier events in every case. At least in a case such as the present, the question of admissibility should be determined by reference to the specific facts of the case.

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 3669, 4233, 4253, 4286, 4288, 4601
  

  Keywords:

  bias; evidence; harassment; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4624

  
  135th Session, 2023
  International Labour Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant takes issue with the type of contract successively awarded to her by the ILO and seeks adequate compensation for the injury she considers she has suffered.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  In respect of the injury that purportedly resulted from the unlawful use of technical cooperation contracts renewed several times, the Tribunal notes that, even supposing that it was unlawful to extend the technical cooperation contract after a given date, that alone does not suffice to establish that the complainant was entitled to have her employment contract converted into a contract funded from the Organization’s regular budget. Paragraph 12 of aforementioned Office Procedure IGDS Number 16, in any event, provides only for the conversion of positions such as that held by the complainant to regular budget positions “progressively and where feasible”. However, the Organization asserts, without being effectively contradicted by the complainant, that such a conversion was not possible in this case owing, in particular, to the lack of budgetary resources available for that purpose.

  Keywords:

  allowance; contract; prejudice;
  

  Consideration 5

  Extract:

  [T]he Tribunal cannot see how the fact that the complainant was appointed under a technical cooperation contract had a considerable impact on the extent of the injury to her health she submits she has suffered.

  Keywords:

  contract; health; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4615

  
  135th Session, 2023
  Energy Charter Conference
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to terminate her appointment.

  Consideration 28

  Extract:

  The complainant also alleges damage to her health and produces a medical certificate to prove her allegation. Said medical certificate describes her symptoms in general terms but does not prove that they are work-related.

  Keywords:

  health; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4608

  
  135th Session, 2023
  World Intellectual Property Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests WIPO’s decision to maintain Office Instruction No. 10/2016, promulgating, inter alia, the discontinuation of the Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises Section.

  Consideration 7

  Extract:

  With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal holds that, although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving her or his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organisation, which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice, are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see, for example, Judgments 3912, consideration 13, and 1775, consideration 7).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 1775, 3912
  

  Keywords:

  prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4529

  
  134th Session, 2022
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant contests WHO’s decision to select Ms V. for the post of Proofreader (Spanish), at grade G-4, in WHO’s Headquarters’ Word Processing Centre.

  Consideration 15

  Extract:

  The Tribunal’s firm case law has it that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias and prejudice. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal (see, for example, Judgments 4382, consideration 11, and 2472, consideration 9).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 4382
  

  Keywords:

  bias; burden of proof; evidence; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4407

  
  132nd Session, 2021
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to award her moral damages higher than 20,000 Swiss francs for the moral injury she alleges to have suffered as a result of the personal prejudice and bias she endured during her probation.

  Consideration 4

  Extract:

  The situations [the complainant] describes in her submissions to the Tribunal show clear issues of mismanagement but do not support a finding of personal prejudice and/or bias against her specifically.

  Keywords:

  bias; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 4382

  
  131st Session, 2021
  International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant challenges the Secretary General’s decisions to set aside her 2016 performance appraisal only on the basis that it was procedurally flawed, and to insert in her personnel file the impugned decision and the report of the Appeals Commission.

  Consideration 11

  Extract:

  It is well settled that the complainant bears the burden of proving allegations of bias and that, moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the allegations must be of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. It is also recognized that bias is often concealed and that direct evidence to support the allegation may not be available. In these cases, proof may rest on inferences drawn from the circumstances. However, reasonable inferences can only be drawn from known facts and cannot be based on suspicion or unsupported allegations (see, for example, Judgments 2472, under 9, 3380, under 9, and 4097, under 14).
  With regard to prejudice, the Tribunal has stated that although evidence of personal prejudice is often concealed and such prejudice must be inferred from surrounding circumstances, that does not relieve the complainant, who has the burden of proving her or his allegations, from introducing evidence of sufficient quality and weight to persuade the Tribunal. Mere suspicion and unsupported allegations are clearly not enough, the less so where the actions of the organization which are alleged to have been tainted by personal prejudice are shown to have a verifiable objective justification (see, for example, Judgment 3912, under 13). The Tribunal has also stated, in the context of alleged inaccuracies in a staff report, that it is not sufficient to consider in relation to each inaccuracy whether it, standing alone, was an abuse of authority. Rather, it is necessary to consider whether, in the light of the evidence, including the various inaccuracies which it identified, the report as a whole was the result of prejudice on the part of the reporting officer (see, for example, Judgment 2930, under 3).

  Reference(s)

  ILOAT Judgment(s): 2472, 2930, 3380, 3912, 4097
  

  Keywords:

  bias; performance evaluation; prejudice;
  

  
  
  

• Judgment 3314

  
  117th Session, 2014
  World Health Organization
  Extracts: EN, FR
  Full Judgment Text: EN, FR
  Summary: The complainant requests compensation for the injury arising from inaction and delay by the Administration in pursuing her harassment complaint.

  Consideration 26

  Extract:

  The complainant claims material damages. The Tribunal has stated that a complainant must provide evidence of actual injury as a result of an unlawful act in order to succeed in such a claim. The complainant has not adduced such evidence. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not award material damages. However, the complainant is entitled to moral damages for the breaches that the Tribunal found, for which the sum of 25,000 United States dollars is awarded.

  Keywords:

  burden of proof; harassment; material damages; prejudice;