|
|
 |
|
|
Discrimination (663,-666)
You searched for:
Keywords: Discrimination
Total judgments found: 22
1, 2 | next >
Judgment 4867
138th Session, 2024
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the determination of her leave status during her absence from work as well as the decision, taken as a result of her internal appeal, not to award her moral damages and to grant her up to 2,500 Swiss francs in legal costs.
Consideration 5
Extract:
[A]llegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts, that establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proven that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgments 4498, consideration 27, 4238, consideration 5, and 4101, consideration 9).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101, 4238, 4498
Keywords:
discrimination; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4855
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Deputy Director, Investment Centre Division, following a competition.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Mr P. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords:
bad faith; bias; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 4854
138th Session, 2024
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the appointment of another official to the position of Director, Office of Strategy, Planning and Resources Management, following a competitive selection process.
Consideration 18
Extract:
Insofar as the complainant alleges that his non-selection was motivated by bad faith, prejudice and discrimination, this has not been proven and cannot be presumed (see Judgment 4352, consideration 17, and the case law cited therein). It is to be recalled that the ultimate decision to appoint Ms C. was based on the recommendation of the Interview Panel and it would be necessary for the complainant to have established, in these proceedings, that its consideration and recommendation was infected by bias, prejudice or discrimination of the type alleged against the Organization more generally.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4352
Keywords:
bad faith; burden of proof; competition; discrimination; prejudice; recommendation; selection board; selection procedure;
Judgment 4752
137th Session, 2024
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to grant her a special post allowance.
Consideration 4
Extract:
Since the situation of the complainant differs from the one of the incumbent of [the] position [in question], her contention that the principle of equal treatment was breached is unsubstantiated, as well as her contention that she was discriminated against.
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment;
Judgment 4593
135th Session, 2023
European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the withdrawal of his right to supplementary days of annual leave for “travelling time”.
Consideration 11
Extract:
As regards the [...] plea alleging that the withdrawal of the complainant’s travelling time constitutes discrimination as it is based on nationality, the Tribunal notes that the criterion used by the Organisation, which is based on entitlement to expatriation or foreign residence allowance, is relevant to the purpose of travelling time, as it concerns the distinction made between an official’s country of origin and her or his place of employment. The complainant’s argument that use of this new criterion results in discrimination based on nationality is in any event ineffective in the context of the present dispute. Indeed, the objection raised in this regard is, in fact, an objection to the conditions on which the expatriation or foreign residence allowance is awarded, rather than travelling time.
Keywords:
discrimination; nationality; travel time;
Judgment 4532
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision to separate her from service on 22 November 2018, after having reached the end of the extension period previously granted beyond the mandatory age of retirement of 62 according to the Staff Rules then in force.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discrimination; retirement age; un common system;
Judgment 4527
134th Session, 2022
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants impugn WHO’s decision to postpone implementation of the mandatory age of separation adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 70/244 of 23 December 2015.
Consideration 15
Extract:
[T]he Tribunal has recognised in Judgment 3071, considerations 12 and 13 (citing Judgment 2915), that differing ages of retirement referable to different pension entitlements are not inherently discriminatory.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2915, 3071
Keywords:
discrimination; retirement age;
Judgment 4498
134th Session, 2022
European Organization for Nuclear Research
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision to reject his claim concerning a surviving spouse’s pension.
Consideration 27
Extract:
Disparity of treatment is unlawful only where equal situations in fact and in law are treated in a different way. The principle of equality requires that persons in the same position in fact and in law must be treated equally (see Judgment 4423, consideration 15). The Tribunal’s case law states that allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts, that establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case (see Judgment 4238, consideration 5). Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proven that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 4101, consideration 9).
The situation of the beneficiaries of the Fund who get married, or remarried, after retirement, is not equivalent to the situation of beneficiaries who get married before retirement. Similarly, the situation of a person who marries a retired beneficiary of the Fund is not equivalent to the situation of a person who married a member of the Fund before their retirement.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4101, 4238, 4423
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; pension;
Judgment 4408
132nd Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant disputes the lawfulness and outcome of a competition procedure in which she participated.
Consideration 21
Extract:
In Judgment 107, the Tribunal held that for the right to take part in competitions to be effective, “it must necessarily include the right to demand that the arrangements for the competition ensure the appointment of the candidate who is really the best qualified. In other words, at every stage of the competition including the arrangements made, the conduct of the tests and the evaluation of their results, every candidate must be treated on an equal footing and with full impartiality” (see also Judgment 1071, consideration 3). In this case, it has not been established that the complainant was not treated on the same terms as the other candidates and she offers no proof that the successful candidate received preferential treatment. Asserting that the successful candidate had a good relationship with the chief of the department concerned, and that it was that chief who set the tests and evaluated the papers, is not sufficient to show that there was a breach of the principle of equal treatment.
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 107, 1071
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; selection procedure;
Judgment 4370
131st Session, 2021
International Telecommunication Union
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant impugns the decision to retire him at the end of the month in which he reached the age of 62, even though he had not completed the five years of contributions required for the payment of a retirement pension by the United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund.
Consideration 12
Extract:
[I]nsofar as the impugned decision merely applies the normal rule of mandatory retirement for staff members who have reached the age limit, it cannot be considered that such a decision involves a misuse of authority or that it constitutes a measure which discriminates against the complainant.
Keywords:
abuse of power; discrimination; misuse of authority; retirement age;
Judgment 4316
130th Session, 2020
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the introduction of fixed “bridging days” to balance the number of public holidays at the different places of employment.
Judgment keywords
Keywords:
complaint dismissed; discrimination; public holiday;
Consideration 15
Extract:
Regarding the alleged indirect discrimination against women, who are more likely to work part-time than men, the IAC minority took into consideration the judgment rendered by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) on 6 December 2007 in case C-300/06, to contend that the change introduced by Circular No. 309 had resulted in indirect discrimination. Regardless of other considerations, the case examined by the ECJ is different from the present case. According to ECJ case law, the principle of equal pay also excludes the application of provisions which maintain different treatment between men and women at work as a result of criteria not based on sex where those differences of treatment are not attributable to objective factors wholly unrelated to sex discrimination. In this case, the alleged indirect discrimination against women is not established, as the difference of treatment had been determined by objective factors, involving financial gains and administrative benefits, wholly unrelated to any kind of discrimination.
Keywords:
discrimination; discrimination against women; equal pay for equal work; european court of justice (ecj); part-time employment;
Judgment 4250
129th Session, 2020
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to grant him the requested paid parental leave upon the birth of his child by surrogacy.
Consideration 3
Extract:
The Tribunal observes that the complainant is basically advocating for a change in the rules and does not make any specific claim in that respect. Accordingly these statements, which are of a general nature serve unclear purposes, and the Tribunal cannot address them.
Keywords:
change of rules; competence of tribunal; discrimination;
Judgment 4238
129th Session, 2020
World Health Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to reclassify his post.
Consideration 5
Extract:
The Tribunal’s case law states that allegations of discrimination and unequal treatment can lead to redress on condition that they are based on precise and proven facts which establish that discrimination has occurred in the subject case (see Judgment 4067, consideration 10).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 4067
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment;
Judgment 4195
128th Session, 2019
European Patent Organisation
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainants challenge the decision to modify the conditions governing sickness insurance for employees’ spouses.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The complainants contend that the breach of their acquired rights also amounts to discrimination, but the Tribunal finds, as it did in a similar case, that the Organisation “has not discriminated against them: far from it. Its purpose was to remove an unfair advantage the Rules used to confer on them. Such corrective action may not be treated as breach of acquired rights even if the advantage was enjoyed for a long time” (see Judgment 1241, under 24).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 1241
Keywords:
acquired right; discrimination;
Judgment 4101
127th Session, 2019
International Labour Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant, who alleges that he was subjected to moral harassment, challenges the refusal to extend his special leave without pay and to grant him certain accommodations with regard to his working arrangements.
Consideration 9
Extract:
According to the Tribunal’s case law, the decision to grant special leave must be taken on a case-by-case basis. It is not possible to assume that, because special leave has been granted to one staff member, it must be granted to another, unless the two cases are identical in fact and in law. Discrimination cannot be established unless it is proved that staff members in identical situations were treated differently (see Judgment 2619, consideration 6).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2619
Keywords:
discretion; discrimination; equal treatment; special leave;
Judgment 4073
127th Session, 2019
Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the reduction of the rate of the expatriate premium paid to her.
Consideration 11
Extract:
[The complainant has not] provided evidence which proves that the reduction in the expatriate premiums she received from 1 January 2015 onwards created discrimination or inequality between herself and other Global Fund staff, as she contends, in circumstances in which she was in a like situation to other staff members but was treated differently (see Judgment 3298, under 21).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 3298
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 4067
127th Session, 2019
Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant contests the decision not to extend his contract.
Consideration 10
Extract:
The third argument is that the decision concerning the complainant involved discrimination and unequal treatment. This principle is engaged and can be taken into consideration by the Tribunal and, if need be, give rise to redress on condition that it is based on precise and proven facts which establish the discrimination has occurred (as to its operation in the context of the OPCW, see Judgment 2660, consideration 24, and also, more generally, Judgment 4027, consideration 12).
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2660, 4027
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 3914
125th Session, 2018
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to renew his project-based fixed-term contract.
Consideration 7
Extract:
The Tribunal notes that, notwithstanding that the burden to prove discrimination and bias rests with the complainant, the WTO provides evidence which shows that the contracts of other Rules Division staff members which were project-based were not renewed when they expired [...]. The WTO states that they were not renewed because, as in the case of the complainant, the projects to which the contract holders were assigned had come to an end and in a few cases contracts were extended to facilitate work on ongoing projects or for compassionate reasons.
Keywords:
burden of proof; discrimination;
Consideration 7
Extract:
[T]he burden to prove discrimination and bias rests with the complainant [...].
Keywords:
bias; burden of proof; discrimination;
Judgment 3868
124th Session, 2017
World Trade Organization
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant challenges the decision not to shortlist him for a position for which he had applied.
Consideration 6
Extract:
The following statement in Judgment 2313, under 5, provides context for discrimination or unequal treatment:
“The principle of equality requires that persons in like situations be treated alike and that persons in relevantly different situations be treated differently. In most cases involving allegations of unequal treatment, the critical question is whether there is a relevant difference warranting the different treatment involved. Even where there is a relevant difference, different treatment may breach the principle of equality if the different treatment is not appropriate and adapted to that difference.”
Keywords:
discrimination; equal treatment; unequal treatment;
Judgment 3414
119th Session, 2015
International Atomic Energy Agency
Extracts: EN,
FR
Full Judgment Text: EN,
FR
Summary: The complainant unsuccessfully challenges the decision to remove his name from an e-mail distribution list on the ground that he had been released from his regular duties to work as President of the Staff Council.
Consideration 7
Extract:
"[T]he complainant bears the burden of proving that the right has been violated or that he had been discriminated against by the IAEA. In so far as an elected representative alleges breach of the right to freedom of association, it is incumbent on the complainant to prove the breach (see Judgment 2585, consideration 11)."
Reference(s)
ILOAT Judgment(s): 2585
Keywords:
burden of proof; discrimination;
1, 2 | next >
|
|
|
|
|
