Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the staff member and a cross-appeal by the Secretary-General. Regarding the cross-appeal of the Secretary-General on material damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the body best placed to assess a candidate¡¯s chance of selection for placement on the roster. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that there were several candidates selected from the roster in the months following the roster approval was sufficient to underpin Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s assessment that the staff member¡¯s chances were not in the realm of the speculative. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit in the Secretary-General¡¯s cross-appeal and dismissed it accordingly. Regarding the staff member¡¯s appeal on material damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was the forum best placed to assess the compensation and that it would not trespass upon the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s function in this regard. However, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not paid due regard or attached sufficient weight to the fact that several candidates were selected following the roster approval and accordingly, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT substituted the sum of USD 3,000 with an award of two months¡¯ net base salary. Regarding the staff member¡¯s appeal on moral damages, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there was no merit to her claim of procedural unfairness. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the extensive case the staff member presented on appeal had not been presented before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and that there was no error of law on the part of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT in finding the claim for mental distress as not substantiated. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the claim for moral damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the staff member¡¯s appeal in part, dismissed the Secretary-General's cross-appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment in part to substitute the amount awarded for material damages for two months¡¯ net base salary, with interest at the US Prime Rate accruing from the date of the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Judgment: The Applicant contested the decision that deemed her ineligible for P-5 positions advertised under a generic vacancy announcement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the application was receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that the Administration¡¯s conclusion that the Applicant was ineligible to apply for a post two grades higher than her personal grade amounted to discrimination against the Applicant vis-¨¤-vis male applicants in the same contractual situation. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rescinded the contested decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that by deeming her ineligible, after she had successfully passed the written test, and by denying her the possibility to pass the interview, the Applicant had lost a chance of being selected for inclusion on the roster and ultimately to be selected for a P-5 position. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that she also had lost a chance to considerably improve her status within the Organisation at the material time. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT awarded compensation of USD 3,000 for the material damages sustained by Applicant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, however, concluded that the Applicant had not established any entitlement to moral damages, finding that she had not substantiated her claim in this regard and had not provided evidence to support it.
Legal Principle(s)
Where a loss of chance becomes speculative, including, but not limited to, being a less than a ten per cent chance, damages should not be awarded. On the issue of what damages should be awarded where an infringement of a staff member¡¯s rights is established, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT has stated that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT is the forum best placed to assess monetary compensation.