UNDT/2021/090

UNDT/2021/090, Temu

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The charge was properly investigated and proffered. There was due process of law and the Applicant at all times had every opportunity to refute the charge and show that UNDP had failed to prove it by clear and convincing evidence or that there were mitigating circumstances. There was no doubt in the process and the ability of the Applicant to understand the charge and make representation about it. Any difficulty in contradicting the charge during the process with documentary evidence was cured by the fact that the matter was provided an oral hearing before the Tribunal.

Accountability referral: the Tribunal referred the matter to the Secretary-General for action on accountability in relation to the decision to order separation of the Applicant during maternity leave.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant challenged the Respondent’s decision to separate her from service for misconduct.

Legal Principle(s)

Clear and convincing evidence is not as high a threshold as “beyond reasonable doubt.” “[W]hen termination is a possible outcome”, the Appeals Tribunal has held that the evidentiary standard is that the Administration must establish the alleged misconduct by “clear and convincing evidence”, which “means that the truth of the facts asserted is highly probable.”

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

The Tribunal found that some of the charges were not proved to the appropriate standard, but the charge relating to conflict of interest was sufficiently made out.

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 UNDT Statute and Article 11(3) of the UNAT 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.

Full Judgment

Applicants/Appellants

Temu

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry :