UNDT/2025/055

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal held that; the facts were established by clear and convincing evidence, the established facts amounted to misconduct, the disciplinary sanction was proportionate to the contested decision and that

the Applicant��s due process rights were not violated. The Tribunal upheld the decision to separate the Applicant from service without termination indemnity, denying the the application in its entirety.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant served UN-Habitat on a fixed-term appointment. He was separated from service on 10 September 2024 without termination indemnity, following findings of serious misconduct involving harassment, discrimination, and abuse of authority.

Legal Principle(s)

I. Standard of Proof in Disciplinary Cases

Clear and convincing evidence is required when termination is a possible outcome.This standard means the truth of the facts must be ��highly probable.��Credible oral testimony alone may suffice in harassment cases (Hallal, UNDT/2011/046; Hallal, 2012-UNAT-207).

II. Judicial Review vs. Merits Review

The Tribunal does not substitute its own decision for that of the Secretary-General.It reviews whether the decision was:Legal Rational Procedurally correct Proportionate (Sanwidi, 2010-UNAT-084)

Outcome

Dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

- Multiple witnesses corroborated allegations of racist, sexist, and demeaning remarks.

- The Applicant admitted to some conduct (e.g., using the term 'bitch').

- Tribunal found no evidence of collusion among complainants.

- Character witnesses lacked direct knowledge of incidents.

- The Tribunal held that the conduct clearly constituted serious misconduct.

- Termination was deemed proportionate given the repeated and targeted nature of the misconduct.

- Lack of prior discipline was not considered mitigating.

- Applicant��s denial and lack of contrition undermined his defense.

- Although there was a two-year delay by the Office of Human Resources, no harm was shown.

- The delay allowed the Applicant to continue earning salary and benefits.

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.

Applicants/Appellants

Lalande

Entity

Case Number(s)

Tribunal

Registry

Date of Judgement