Prejudice (926,-666)

You searched for:
Keywords: Prejudice
Total judgments found: 8

• 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;