2025-Ģ��ƵAT-1542

Ģ��ƵAT Held or Ģ��ƵDT Pronouncements

The Ģ��ƵAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the Ģ��ƵDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The Ģ��ƵDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the Ģ��ƵDT��s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The Ģ��ƵDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace harassment.

The Ģ��ƵAT found that there was clear justification for the former employee��s severance from the Organization and there was no deprivation of his due process rights in how the Organization handled AAO��s case.

The Ģ��ƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ģ��ƵDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

AAO, a former staff member of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (Ģ��ƵODC), contested his separation from service for sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

By Judgment No. Ģ��ƵDT/2024/016, the Ģ��ƵDT concluded that the Administration had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that AAO engaged in sexual harassment and workplace harassment and that the disciplinary measure was a proportionate response to the established conduct. The Ģ��ƵDT dismissed AAO��s application.

The former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

In sexual harassment cases, while no single event may have reasonably amounted to sexual harassment, when considered together, the events may establish a subtle, deliberate and an intentional pattern of conduct which can be preparatory to a sexual encounter, which is all the more egregious when there is an imbalance of power.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

OAJ prepared this case law summary for informational purposes only. It is no official record and should not be relied upon as an authoritative interpretation of the Tribunals' rulings. For the authoritative texts, please refer to the judgment or order rendered by the respective Tribunal. The Tribunals are the only bodies competent to interpret their respective judgments, as provided under Article 12(3) of the Ģ��ƵDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the Ģ��ƵAT Statute. Any inaccuracies in the publication are the sole responsibility of OAJ, which should be contacted directly for any correction requests. To provide comments, don't hesitate to get in touch with OAJ at oaj@un.org.

The judgment summaries were generally prepared in English. They were translated into French and are being reviewed for accuracy of the translation.

Applicants/Appellants

AAO

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement