Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT rejected the motion for leave to comment on the answer to the appeal, finding that the matters that the Appellant sought to address in her comments would be essentially a repetition of, or supplementary to, her submissions. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT properly reviewed the contested decision in accordance with the applicable law and addressed the concerns identified by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT by establishing the critical facts as instructed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT's conclusions were consistent with the evidence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found no error in the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s finding that the Appellant failed to establish that the decision not to renew her fixed-term appointment was tainted by improper and discriminatory motives, resulting from bias and animus, based on an ongoing conflict between her and the Chief of the CTPU. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the decision to not renew her fixed-term appointment based on the reduction of work within the Chinese Test Processing Unit (CTPU). Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT found that it was not unreasonable for the Administration, based on the data available at the time of the contested decision, to conclude that there would be a decrease in work in the CTPU. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT also found that the Applicant had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support her alleged expectancy for contract renewal. The Applicant appealed. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT remanded the case to Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT for fresh consideration since Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not addressed the Applicant¡¯s allegations that the reasons that the Administration had provided for the non-renewal decision were a falsehood and a fabrication aimed at justifying retaliation against her on account of her complaints. In judgment No. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT/2017/071, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT again rejected the application, finding that the Applicant failed to meet the burden of proof that the [non-renewal] decision was based [on] ulterior motives.
Legal Principle(s)
It is a well-established principle that fixed-term appointments or appointments of limited duration carry no expectation of renewal or conversion to another type of appointment. Even the renewal of the appointment of a staff member on successive appointments does not, in and of itself, give grounds for an expectancy of renewal, unless the Administration has made an express promise that gives the staff member an expectancy that his or her appointment will be extended. The jurisprudence requires this promise at least to be in writing. An administrative decision not to renew a fixed-term appointment can be challenged on the grounds that the Administration has not acted fairly, justly, or transparently with the staff member or was motivated by bias, prejudice, or improper motive. The staff member has the burden of proving such factors played a role in the administrative decision.