51³Ô¹Ï

2025-UNAT-1542

2025-UNAT-1542, AAO

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The UNAT held that there was no error of law or fact by the UNDT in finding that the allegations of sexual harassment and workplace harassment were proven to the clear and convincing evidence standard. The UNDT had the advantage of seeing and hearing the evidence of the principal witnesses to, and relating to, the events. There was therefore ample evidence to confirm the UNDT’s assessments of the occurrence and significance of the events. The UNDT was also entitled to draw the inference that AAO, rebuffed in his sexual advances by the complainant, retaliated subsequently through workplace harassment.

The UNAT found that there was clear justification for the former employee’s severance from the Organization and there was no deprivation of his due process rights in how the Organization handled AAO’s case.

The UNAT dismissed the appeal and affirmed the UNDT Judgment.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

AAO, a former staff member of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), contested his separation from service for sexual harassment and workplace harassment.

By Judgment No. UNDT/2024/016, the UNDT concluded that the Administration had demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that AAO engaged in sexual harassment and workplace harassment and that the disciplinary measure was a proportionate response to the established conduct. The UNDT dismissed AAO’s application.

The former staff member appealed.

Legal Principle(s)

In sexual harassment cases, while no single event may have reasonably amounted to sexual harassment, when considered together, the events may establish a subtle, deliberate and an intentional pattern of conduct which can be preparatory to a sexual encounter, which is all the more egregious when there is an imbalance of power.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed on merits

Outcome Extra Text

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
AAO
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type