Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not failed to properly exercise its jurisdiction by refusing to convene a second case management discussion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, regarding the question of whether Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT failed to address the Appellant¡¯s factual arguments challenging the legality of the abolition of her post, the appeal was without merit; the Appellant only reargued her case and did not establish that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in fact or in law about this issue. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held, however, that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in deciding that the Appellant had failed to rebut the presumption that the selection of Mr. D R-B, given that the selected candidate was a similarly situated colleague, with less seniority and experience, was regular and dismissed her claim that the termination was unlawful. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the reassignment of Mr. D R-B was not compliant with the gender policy and that the Administration did not demonstrate that all reasonable efforts had been made to consider the Appellant for available suitable posts. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the previous medical reports established the stress, harm, and anxiety that the Appellant had suffered, which could reasonably be attributed to the conditions of termination, the gender policy violation, and the due process rights breaches. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the appeal in part. The decision to terminate the Appellant¡¯s fixed-term appointment was rescinded, and the Secretary-General was ordered to reinstate the Appellant on similar terms and conditions of employment or, alternatively, to pay compensation in lieu. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT granted the Appellant compensation for moral damages.