Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵ

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered an appeal by the Secretary-General. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that no gender discrimination took place against Ms Abbasi. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in finding that there was gender discrimination against her. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Administration applied Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF¡¯s Gender Parity and Equality Policy in Ms Abbasi¡¯s favour. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT did not find any violation of the right to be equally considered ¨C or even favoured for reasons of gender ¨C in the evaluation criteria applied or in the decisions taken by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵICEF during the selection process. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT upheld the appeal and vacated the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT found that there was no evidence of damages or injuries in this case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT reaffirmed the principle that an award for moral damages must be supported by specific evidence.

The staff member appealed on the ground that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had made errors of fact in the judgment. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT recalled that in order to overturn a finding of fact, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT must be satisfied that the finding is not supported by the evidence or that it is unreasonable. Some degree of deference should be given to the factual findings by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT as the court of first instance, particularly where oral evidence is heard. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal finding that there were no grounds for overturning the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s findings of fact and that no other reversible errors were made.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT considered the appeals by the Secretary-General and by Mr Abubakr. Regarding the Secretary-General¡¯s appeal, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT agreed with Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT that the Administration had failed to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaint of harassment and discrimination with the required due diligence. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in law and fact in choosing not to recognize, in any way meaningful, the majority of the actions relied on by the Secretary-General to address Mr Abubakr¡¯s complaints. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, by virtue of the ¡°dysfunctional¡± work of the Panel on Discrimination and Other Grievances (PDOG), Mr Abubakr...

Regarding the lateral moves, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact, that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves were not recorded in the requisite database, was not dispositive of the issue, nor did the definition of ¡°lateral move¡± in ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1 included such a requirement. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s decision on this point was based on the evidence that clearly established that the selected candidate¡¯s lateral moves satisfied the requirements of ST/AI/2006/3/Rev. 1. Regarding the work experience, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the evidence before Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT supported its finding that the selected candidate had at least 10...

Regarding the allegations that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT erred in law, fact, and procedure and failed to exercise its jurisdiction in relation to her allegations of discrimination, Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the burden was on the Appellant to establish that the oral and documentary evidence, if admitted, would have led to different findings of fact, and changed the outcome of the case. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in rejecting the Appellant¡¯s allegations that she had been subjected to discrimination on the grounds of gender or based on her family responsibilities and her expressed desire to work part-time. Regarding the...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had failed to put forward evidence that the selection process for the post for which she had applied had been vitiated by any irregularity or of the existence of bias or misconduct in considering her candidacy. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that all the stages of the procedure had been followed and that the Appellant had benefitted from an objective examination and equal treatment to which all applicants are entitled. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that, in view of the evidence, the Appellant had no real chance of being appointed or shortlisted between the three candidates recommended. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT was correct in finding that ¡°consideration¡± of a candidate for the purposes of ST/AI/2006/3 did not necessarily mean that a candidate can only be meaningfully considered once the relevant assessment tools have been administered to the candidates and the outcome communicated to them. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the fact that the Administration invited the 30-day mark candidates to undertake a written test before the assessment of the 15-day mark candidates was completed did not mean that the Appellant was not afforded priority consideration. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT noted that the written test had taken...

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant was asking for a review of his case in order to enhance the award and that he merely repeated arguments already considered and accepted by Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT, which was not the purpose of an appeal. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had not met the burden of demonstrating that the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had erred in assessing the damages. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT did not err on a question of fact resulting in a manifestly unreasonable decision on this point. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT judgment.

Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant had merely repeated his submissions before JAB and Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT and while voicing his disagreement with the conclusions, he did not succeed to establish any errors committed by the Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that the Appellant did not possess the relevant professional qualification. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT had not erred in affirming the JAB¡¯s findings that the allegations of manipulation of the selection criteria were not well-founded and that the selection process was conducted in a proper manner. Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵAT held that Ä¢¹½ÊÓƵDT¡¯s focus on the requirement of professional legal experience did not...