51łÔąĎ

UNDT/2025/048

UNDT/2025/048, Zainab El-Sibaii

UNAT Held or UNDT Pronouncements

The Tribunal observed that unlike the Applicant’s First Reporting Officer’s (“FRO”) comments which were entirely consistent with the ePAS rating of “Successfully Meets Expectations”, the comments of the Applicant’s Second Reporting Officer (“SRO”) seriously undercut and detract from the overall appraisal rating." The Tribunal further noted that after the initial sentence recognizing that the Applicant “consistently performed her tasks and duties effectively” and commending her “ambition and dedication in her role, the SRO added seven sentences which were completely negative about the Applicant. Even the positive traits initially mentioned were turned against the Applicant.

In view of the above, the Tribunal:

a. Determined that the performance evaluation in Applicant’s ePAS for the 2023-2024 evaluation cycle was receivable;

b. Determined that the performance evaluation in Applicant’s ePAS for the 2023-2024 evaluation cycle was unlawful; and

c. Rescinded the Applicant’s 2023-2024 performance appraisal as set forth in her ePAS in order to provide management an opportunity to revise it in an appropriate manner.

Decision Contested or Judgment/Order Appealed

The Applicant filed an application challenging what she described as “comments on 2023-24 ePAS which detract from the overall rating”.

Legal Principle(s)

Pursuant to the settled jurisprudence, comments in a staff member’s ePAS that detract from a satisfactory performance appraisal carry direct legal consequences and constitute a reviewable administrative decision.

Outcome

Judgment entered for Applicant in full or in part

Outcome Extra Text

Based on the evidence on record, the Tribunal:

a. Determined that the performance evaluation in Applicant’s ePAS for the 2023-2024 evaluation cycle was receivable.

b. Determined that the performance evaluation in Applicant’s ePAS for the 2023-2024 evaluation cycle was unlawful; and

c. Rescinded the Applicant’s 2023-2024 performance appraisal as set forth in her ePAS in order to provide management an opportunity to revise it in an appropriate manner.

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
Zainab El-Sibaii
Entity
Case Number(s)
Tribunal
Registry
Date of Judgement
Duty Judge
Language of Judgment
Issuance Type
Categories/Subcategories