Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
As a preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the Appellant¡¯s request for an oral hearing. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT then considered the Appellant¡¯s claims that the facts were not established by clear and convincing evidence, that there were procedural flaws during the disciplinary proceedings, and that his separation from service was not warranted. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that clear and convincing evidence showed that the Appellant harassed all the alleged victims and abused his authority, in violation of WFP¡¯s Harassment Policy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT also held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly found that the sanction of separation from service was proportionate because sexual harassment is serious misconduct, especially when a staff member¡¯s supervisor is the harasser. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT finding that there were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances that would warrant a lesser sanction. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that there were no procedural irregularities and the investigation conducted was thorough. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to separate him from service for misconduct in the form of sexually and verbally harassing staff members and abuse of authority. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT determined that the disciplinary measure of separation from service was proportionate in light of the Applicant¡¯s supervisory position and because his conduct created a hostile work environment for the staff at his Office. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT dismissed his application.
Legal Principle(s)
An Administration bears the burden of establishing that the alleged misconduct, for which a disciplinary measure has been taken against a staff member, occurred. When termination is a possible sanction, the misconduct must be established by clear and convincing evidence, which means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.