2025-UNAT-1538, Corinne Delphine N'Daw
UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements
The UNAT held that the former staff member had a duty to promptly disclose to UNFPA that she was under investigation when she resigned from Oxfam–a fact that it considered relevant to her suitability for the position. It noted that the application form included a specific question about whether she resigned while under investigation, indicating her awareness of the Organisation’s core values. The UNAT also emphasized that her letter of appointment stated that she was responsible for providing any required information during both the application process and subsequent employment.
The UNAT observed that the fact that, when contacted by the Administration to provide information regarding the circumstances of her resignation, she declined to provide details and referred the Organization to her counsel further demonstrated a failure to fulfil her duty to disclose relevant information.
The UNAT concluded that both her resignation from Oxfam while under investigation and her failure to report this information to UNFPA in a timely manner raised serious doubts about her integrity. It held that, had UNFPA been aware of this fact at the time of her appointment, it would have had serious doubts as to whether she met the standards of efficiency, competence, and integrity required of a staff member, and would have precluded her appointment.
The UNAT acknowledged that UNFPA had violated the former staff member’s due process rights by failing to inform her of the possible consequences of failing to provide the requested information. However, applying the no-difference principle, it concluded that even if she had been given such an opportunity, it would not have changed the outcome of the case.
The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed Judgment No. UNDT/2024/014.
Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed
A former staff member of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) contested the decision of the Administration to terminate her appointment based on facts anterior to her appointment, which were discovered after her appointment and considered relevant to her suitability for the position of UNFPA Representative to the Guinea Country Office.
In its Judgment No. UNDT/2024/014, the UNDT dismissed the former staff member’s application, concluding that the contested decision was lawful.
The former staff member appealed.
Legal Principle(s)
The Administration may decide to terminate a staff member’s fixed-term appointment if the following three conditions are met cumulatively: i) a fact anterior to the appointment of the staff member comes to light; ii) the fact was unknown to the Administration at the time of the staff member’s appointment; and iii) the fact was directly relevant to the staff member’s suitability for the position, and should have precluded their appointment under the standards established in the Charter of the United Nations had it been known at the time of the staff member’s appointment.
Due process rights are complied with as long as a staff member has a meaningful opportunity to mount a defense and to question the veracity of the statements against her/him.
According to the so-called “no difference principle”, a lack or a deficiency in due process will be no bar to a fair or reasonable administrative decision or disciplinary action should it appear at a later stage that fuller or better due process would have made no difference. The principle applies exceptionally where the ultimate outcome is an irrefutable foregone conclusion.