Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT Held or Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT Pronouncements
As a first preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion requesting confidentiality in which the Appellant sought to limit the disclosure of personal information relating to her citizenship and immigration status. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the personal data was not pertinent to the case, disclosure of the information would not have taken place without the Appellant¡¯s own motions and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT would not have asked her to disclose such information. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT denied the motion. As a second preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to respond to the Respondent¡¯s observations on a motion. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that its RoP did not provide for such responses and denied the motion. As a third preliminary matter, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered a motion to exclude judges from the present appeal for reasons of conflict of interest. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that this motion, which contained serious accusations against Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT judges and was without any support, was derogatory, baseless and abusive and in violation of the Code of Conduct for Legal Representative and Litigants. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the motion provided no rational or coherent basis for concluding that there could be a conflict of interest and denied the motion. On the merits, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly concluded that the Appellant¡¯s appeal was not receivable because (1) it was time-barred and (2) the selection for a temporary job was not an appealable decision because it did not have any adverse legal consequences for the Appellant. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant¡¯s claim about her terms of employment and issues about her performance appraisal were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in deciding that the appeal of the selection for a temporary job and the claim about the terms of employment were not receivable and therefore it was unnecessary to remand the case for additional fact-finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT correctly decided that the Appellant did not have a legitimate expectation of renewal of appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err in considering that the Appellant did not substantiate the unlawfulness of the non-renewal and therefore it was unnecessary to remand the case for additional fact-finding. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
The Applicant contested the non-renewal of her six-month temporary appointment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT concluded that her application was not receivable for the following reasons: (1) it was time-barred and (2) it did not concern an appealable decision in the sense that the Applicant did not suffer any harm from the decision. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT held that the aspects of her claims concerning her performance appraisal were not receivable. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was satisfied that the Applicant did not have any legitimate expectation of renewal, that the reasons for the non-renewal of her temporary appointment were credible and lawful, and that there was no impropriety in the selection of a rostered candidate for the position, which the Applicant occupied temporarily. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT rejected her application.
Legal Principle(s)
Case management issues, including the question of whether to call a certain person to testify or to order the production of documents, remain within the discretion of Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and do not merit a reversal except in clear cases of denial of due process of law affecting the right to produce evidence by a party. If based on valid reasons and in compliance with procedural requirements, the non-renewal of a fixed-term appointment, including a temporary appointment, is lawful unless the Administration abused its discretion or was motivated by discriminatory or improper grounds. The burden is on the staff member to show a legitimate expectancy of renewal or that the non-renewal of his or her fixed-term appointment was arbitrary or motivated by bias, prejudice or improper motive against the staff member.