## conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/index1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/index1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/index1.pdf.json)

---

### Conclusion on career progression and discrimination
- "conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career progression" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 97.
- "discrimination review reasonably found that Applicant’s career progression not adversely affected by discrimination" — Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 107-110.
- "fact of non-advancement is not proof of discrimination" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 98, 129; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 109.
- "non-advancement in career is not of itself proof of" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 98, 129; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 109; Judgment No. 2006-1 (Mr. “O”), para. 100.

### Discrimination principles, policy, and jurisprudence
- Fund’s Discrimination Policy and related directives referenced as relevant law — Judgment No. 2005-1 (Mr. “F”), paras. 84, 90, 93, 96 and note 16; Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 126.
- "Fund’s written law sets forth principle of nondiscrimination within context of employment relationship" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 126-127.
- "non-discrimination principle imposes substantive limit on exercise of discretionary authority in both policy-making and administrative functions of international organization" — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), paras. 30-32; Judgment No. 2002-3 (Ms. “G”), para. 76.
- "no discrimination where 'rational nexus' between purposes of the employment benefits and classification scheme for their allocation" — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), para. 64; Judgment No. 2002-3 (Ms. “G”), paras. 79-80.
- "statistics alone do not prove" discrimination — Judgment No. 2006-2 (Ms. “T”), para. 50 and note 14; Judgment No. 2006-3 (Ms. “U”), para. 50 and note 17.
- "theories of" discrimination discussed — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), paras. 36-46; Judgment No. 2002-3 (Ms. “G”), para. 76.
- "admissibility of allegations of, where challenge to separation from service not time-barred and separation challenged, in part, as culminating act of discrimination" — Judgment No. 2006-1 (Mr. “O”), paras. 72-75.
- "allegation of 'continuing' discrimination inadmissible where failure to exhaust channels of administrative review" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 120-121; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 15-16.

### Discrimination review exercise (DRE) and remedies
- "decision to undertake ad hoc discrimination review and implementation in Applicant’s case did not represent abuse of discretionary authority" — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 52, 80.
- "claims denied that Fund failed to implement remedy accorded Applicant through DRE and improperly used DRE report" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 122-130.

### Child support, SRP, and nondiscrimination for children
- "amendment of SRP Section 11.3 places on equal footing children born in and out of wedlock by separating child support from spousal support" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 121.
- "court-ordered entitlement to, rests with child; policy of recognizing spousal contribution to marital unit does not provide reasonable basis for differential treatment of children born out of wedlock" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 130.
- "no bona fide dispute as to validity of child support orders so as to justify failure to give effect pursuant to Administration Committee’s Rules under SRP Section 11.3" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 174-224.
- "to be given effect under Staff Retirement Plan, court orders for not need specify that support payments be made from retiree’s Fund pension payments" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 134-158.
- "child born out of wedlock entitled to human right of being free from impermissible discrimination" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 130.
- "in failing to make adequate provision for children born out of wedlock, former SRP Section 11.3 incompatible with international standards of nondiscrimination" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 132-133.

### Discretionary authority, standards of review, and de novo review
- "deference by Tribunal to exercise of managerial discretion, especially in areas of managerial expertise" — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), paras. 33-34.
- "lawful exercise of [discretionary authority] with respect to individual decisions, where not arbitrary or capricious but reasonably supported by evidence" — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), para. 63.
- "greater degree of Tribunal’s scrutiny over where contested decision allegedly violated universally recognized human right" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 117.
- "authority of IMFAT to make both findings of fact and conclusions of law, drawing upon record assembled through review procedures" — Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 95-96.
- "of merits of underlying discrimination claim not appropriate in case arising from ad hoc discrimination review procedure" — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 34-41; Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 66 and note 23; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 49 and note 27.

### Costs, remedial authority, and allocation of legal fees
- "Applicant, Respondent and Intervenor each to bear own costs" — Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P”(No. 2)), para. 157.
- Assessment practices for compensable legal costs set out in Orders and Judgments including:
  - "Fund to bear 75 percent of Applicant’s legal costs where Applicant not successful on principal claim but record assembled and argued by Applicant’s counsel in pursuit of that claim was indispensable to Tribunal’s award of substantial relief on other substantial counts" — Order No. 2005-1 (Mr. “F”) (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2005-1).
  - "attorney’s statement of costs accepted as valid representation of 'costs incurred'; IMFAT will not inquire into fee arrangement" — Order No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”) and Order No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), para. First.
  - "assessed as full amount requested" — Order No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J") (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2003-1), para. Third; Order No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K") (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2003-2), para. Second.
  - "no deduction for costs attributable to consultation relating to claim of 'intersecting nature' with claim on which Applicant prevailed" — Order No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J") (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2003-1), para. Second.
  - "parties directed to negotiate amount" — Judgment No. 1997-1 (Ms. “C”), Decision.
  - "proportionality to degree of success on claims, but no relationship to amount of compensation" — Order No. 1997-1 (Interpretation of Judgment No. 1997-1); Order No. 1998-1 (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 1997-1).
  - "to be awarded pursuant to Tribunal’s remedial authority; submission invited" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), Decision.
- "no costs to Fund for defending allegedly frivolous claims in Grievance Committee" — Judgment No. 1999-2 (Mr. “V”), paras. 132-139.

*Source: index1 - conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career (IMF).*

### conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career

### conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career

### Conclusion on career progression and discrimination
- "conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career progression" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 97.
- "discrimination review reasonably found that Applicant’s career progression not adversely affected by discrimination" — Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 107-110.
- "fact of non-advancement is not proof of discrimination" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 98, 129; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 109.
- "non-advancement in career is not of itself proof of" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 98, 129; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 109; Judgment No. 2006-1 (Mr. “O”), para. 100.

### Discrimination principles, policy, and jurisprudence
- Fund’s Discrimination Policy and related directives referenced as relevant law — Judgment No. 2005-1 (Mr. “F”), paras. 84, 90, 93, 96 and note 16; Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 126.
- "Fund’s written law sets forth principle of nondiscrimination within context of employment relationship" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 126-127.
- "non-discrimination principle imposes substantive limit on exercise of discretionary authority in both policy-making and administrative functions of international organization" — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), paras. 30-32; Judgment No. 2002-3 (Ms. “G”), para. 76.
- "no discrimination where 'rational nexus' between purposes of the employment benefits and classification scheme for their allocation" — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), para. 64; Judgment No. 2002-3 (Ms. “G”), paras. 79-80.
- "statistics alone do not prove" discrimination — Judgment No. 2006-2 (Ms. “T”), para. 50 and note 14; Judgment No. 2006-3 (Ms. “U”), para. 50 and note 17.
- "theories of" discrimination discussed — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), paras. 36-46; Judgment No. 2002-3 (Ms. “G”), para. 76.
- "admissibility of allegations of, where challenge to separation from service not time-barred and separation challenged, in part, as culminating act of discrimination" — Judgment No. 2006-1 (Mr. “O”), paras. 72-75.
- "allegation of 'continuing' discrimination inadmissible where failure to exhaust channels of administrative review" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 120-121; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 15-16.

### Discrimination review exercise (DRE) and remedies
- "decision to undertake ad hoc discrimination review and implementation in Applicant’s case did not represent abuse of discretionary authority" — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 52, 80.
- "claims denied that Fund failed to implement remedy accorded Applicant through DRE and improperly used DRE report" — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 122-130.

### Child support, SRP, and nondiscrimination for children
- "amendment of SRP Section 11.3 places on equal footing children born in and out of wedlock by separating child support from spousal support" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 121.
- "court-ordered entitlement to, rests with child; policy of recognizing spousal contribution to marital unit does not provide reasonable basis for differential treatment of children born out of wedlock" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 130.
- "no bona fide dispute as to validity of child support orders so as to justify failure to give effect pursuant to Administration Committee’s Rules under SRP Section 11.3" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 174-224.
- "to be given effect under Staff Retirement Plan, court orders for need not specify that support payments be made from retiree’s Fund pension payments" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 134-158.
- "child born out of wedlock entitled to human right of being free from impermissible discrimination" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 130.
- "in failing to make adequate provision for children born out of wedlock, former SRP Section 11.3 incompatible with international standards of nondiscrimination" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 132-133.

### Discretionary authority, standards of review, and de novo review
- "deference by Tribunal to exercise of managerial discretion, especially in areas of managerial expertise" — Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), paras. 33-34.
- "lawful exercise of [discretionary authority] with respect to individual decisions, where not arbitrary or capricious but reasonably supported by evidence" — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), para. 63.
- "greater degree of Tribunal’s scrutiny over where contested decision allegedly violated universally recognized human right" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 117.
- "authority of IMFAT to make both findings of fact and conclusions of law, drawing upon record assembled through review procedures" — Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 95-96.
- "of merits of underlying discrimination claim not appropriate in case arising from ad hoc discrimination review procedure" — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 34-41; Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 66 and note 23; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 49 and note 27.

### Costs, remedial authority, and allocation of legal fees
- "Applicant, Respondent and Intervenor each to bear own costs" — Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P”(No. 2)), para. 157.
- Assessment practices for compensable legal costs set out in Orders and Judgments (Orders and Judgment citations preserved in source) including:
  - "Fund to bear 75 percent of Applicant’s legal costs where Applicant not successful on principal claim but record assembled and argued by Applicant’s counsel in pursuit of that claim was indispensable to Tribunal’s award of substantial relief on other substantial counts" — Order No. 2005-1 (Mr. “F”) (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2005-1).
  - "attorney’s statement of costs accepted as valid representation of 'costs incurred'; IMFAT will not inquire into fee arrangement" — Order No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”) and Order No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), para. First.
  - "assessed as full amount requested" — Order No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J") (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2003-1), para. Third; Order No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K") (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2003-2), para. Second.
  - "no deduction for costs attributable to consultation relating to claim of 'intersecting nature' with claim on which Applicant prevailed" — Order No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J") (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 2003-1), para. Second.
  - "parties directed to negotiate amount" — Judgment No. 1997-1 (Ms. “C”), Decision.
  - "proportionality to degree of success on claims, but no relationship to amount of compensation" — Order No. 1997-1 (Interpretation of Judgment No. 1997-1); Order No. 1998-1 (Assessment of compensable legal costs pursuant to Judgment No. 1997-1).
  - "to be awarded pursuant to Tribunal’s remedial authority; submission invited" — Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), Decision.
- "no costs to Fund for defending allegedly frivolous claims in Grievance Committee" — Judgment No. 1999-2 (Mr. “V”), paras. 132-139.

*Publication: index1 - conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career (IMF).*

### conclusion of non-discrimination sustained as not arbitrary or capricious where Applicant

### conclusion of non-discrimination sustained as not arbitrary or capricious where Applicant awarded relief for “unfair or uneven treatment” and DRE not designed to determine “discrimination” to a legal standard

### Key findings
- "conclusion sustained that factors other than discrimination affected Applicant’s career progression"
  - Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 97.
- "conclusion of non-discrimination sustained as not arbitrary or capricious where Applicant awarded relief for “unfair or uneven treatment” and DRE not designed to determine “discrimination” to a legal standard"
  - Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 102.
- 20

*Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 97, 102.*

### conclusion that Applicant’s career not adversely affected by discrimination

### conclusion that Applicant’s career not adversely affected by discrimination

### Findings on conclusion that Applicant’s career not adversely affected
- Conclusion that Applicant’s career not adversely affected by discrimination sustained as reasonably supported by the evidence — Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 79-112.
- History, outcomes, and Fund’s policies governing related matters discussed — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 33-45; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 19-30.
- Statistics on DRE outcomes not probative of discrimination in DRE process or in Applicant’s case — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 28, 112; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 115.

### Methodology and procedural issues in the Discrimination Review Exercise (DRE)
- Methodology of applying “rebuttable presumption” of discrimination in Applicant’s case was within leeway permitted by DRE procedures — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 85-88.
- Methodology of investigating specific incidents brought to review team’s attention by Applicant sustained as consistent with DRE procedures — Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 68-76.
- No abuse of discretion in application of DRE to Applicant’s case where procedures were consistent with those set forth for DRE and applied by other review teams — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), para. 62.
- No abuse of discretion in basing DRE on qualitative considerations as well as statistical data — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 18-21; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 74.
- Review not affected by bias against Applicant — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 83-84.

### Remedies, alternative dispute resolution, and recourse
- Remedies accorded Applicants pursuant to DRE sustained as reasonably based — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 103-113; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 113-116.
- No abuse of discretion in Fund’s reasoned decision to undertake alternative dispute resolution mechanism to facilitate resolution of longstanding complaints — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 42-52.
- Procedural challenges denied where procedures applied in Applicants’ cases were consistent with those set forth for DRE and fair resolution of complaint — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 70-90; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 53-76.
- Recourse available only to then current staff members — Judgment No. 2006-1 (Mr. “O”), note 22.
- Relationship to Grievance Committee addressed in context of DRE and review procedures — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 26-30.

### Scope of Tribunal review and evidentiary matters
- Scope of IMFAT’s review of claims initially raised under other procedures considered and delineated — Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 34-41; Judgment No. 2005-1 (Mr. “F”), note 12; Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 64-65, 102 and note 23; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 47-48, 112 and note 27.
- Evidence before Tribunal includes record generated by Grievance Committee and records assembled through review procedures — Judgment No. 1996-1 (Mr. M. D’Aoust), para. 17; Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 7; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 7, 121.
- Statistics on DRE outcomes held not probative where not directly relevant to Applicant’s individual claim — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 28, 112; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 115.

### Procedural posture and admissibility considerations
- Procedural challenges and challenges to DRE outcomes considered in light of exhaustion of channels of administrative review and Tribunal jurisdiction; Tribunal deferred to DRE procedures where consistent with established practice — Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 64-65, 102 and note 23; Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 47-48, 112 and note 27.
- Contention raised in additional pleading inadmissible where not closely linked to contested decision nor given measure of review by Grievance Committee — Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), paras. 14, 114.

*Source: index1 - conclusion that Applicant’s career not adversely affected by discrimination*

### Section 11.3 does not preclude giving effect to court orders for support payments due

### Section 11.3 does not preclude giving effect to court orders for support payments due

### Scope and principal distinctions
- Section 11.3 does not preclude giving effect to court orders for support payments due prior to Applicants’ requests to Fund, where court ordered payment from future Fund pension benefits of past support obligations.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 172.
  - “prospective payments” (Rule 9) of Administration Committee’s Rules under SRP.
- Section 11.3 precludes giving effect to court orders for support payments due prior to Applicants’ requests to Fund, where court order does not specify payment of past support obligations from future Fund pension benefits.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 173.

### Evolution of Fund internal law and giving effect to family-support/division orders
- Provisions and evolution for giving effect under SRP to court orders for family support or division of marital property:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), paras. 69-87.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 57, 87, 118-122, 136-148 and note 43.
- Tribunal rescission of decision to escrow disputed portion of pension payment and order directing division of marital property pursuant to divorce judgment to be given effect under Staff Retirement Plan:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), paras. 145, 156 and Decision.

### Retroactivity, participation, and relevant SRP provisions
- Retroactive participation of former contractual employees:
  - Judgment No. 1995-1 (Ms. “S”), paras. 19-20.
- SRP Section 1.1:
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), note 20.
- SRP Section 4.2:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), para. 60.
- SRP Section 4.3:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), note 7.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 22, 27, 129-157.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), paras. 9-10, 14, 55-95.
- SRP Section 4.6:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), para. 60.
- SRP Section 7.1:
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), note 28.
- SRP Section 7.2:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), para. 141.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 113-114.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), paras. 47 and note 12.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 167 and notes 53, 86.
- SRP Section 9.1:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), para. 73, note 34.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), note 111.
- SRP Section 9.10:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), para. 23 and note 8.
- SRP Section 11.1:
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 129, 135-136, 139-140, 163, 168 and notes 72, 80.
- SRP Section 11.3:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), paras. 60-61, 63, 75-87.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), para. 115 and note 12.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), para. 48 and note 5.
- SRP Section 15.1:
  - Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), para. 60.

### Non‑discrimination, legitimacy, and jurisdictional considerations under SRP Section 11.3
- SRP Section 11.3 (as formerly drafted) found fundamentally defective as incompatible with international standards of nondiscrimination by failing to make adequate provision for children born out of wedlock in giving effect to child support orders.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 132.
- Governing consideration under SRP Section 11.3 is that child support order must be issued by a court of competent jurisdiction; recognition by retiree’s country of domicile is not required.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 198, 206.
- Under SRP Section 11.3, orders for child or spousal support need not specify that support payments be made from retiree’s Fund pension payments in order to be given effect.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 134-158.

*Source: Judgments and SRP Sections cited (Judgment No. 1995-1; Judgment No. 2001-2; Judgment No. 2003-1; Judgment No. 2003-2; Judgment No. 2006-6; SRP Sections 1.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 7.1, 7.2, 9.1, 9.10, 11.1, 11.3, 15.1).*

### Section 11.3, underlying purpose of, is to encourage enforcement of orders for family

### Section 11.3, underlying purpose of, is to encourage enforcement of orders for family

### Purpose and substantive finding
- Section 11.3’s underlying purpose is to encourage enforcement of orders for family support and division of marital property; it favors legal systems in which such measures are recognized.
- Judgment No. 2001-2 (Mr. “P” (No. 2)), para. 151.
- Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 140, 143, 153, 155.
- Termination of pensionable period of service discussed in Judgment No. 1994-1 (Mr. “X”), paras. 23-24.

### Standard of IMFAT’s review (overview of jurisprudential approach)
- Arbitrary and capricious is least rigorous level of scrutiny applicable to acts of managerial discretion.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), para. 109.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), para. 44.
- Deference is heightened in reviewing “regulatory decisions,” especially policy decisions of the Executive Board.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), para. 105.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), para. 43.
- Degree of review is dictated by the nature of the process being reviewed.
  - Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), para. 65.
- Tribunal describes the relationship between Tribunal and decision maker; represents the degree of deference accorded by Tribunal to the decision maker’s judgment.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), para. 99.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), para. 40.
- Classification schemes assessed against the general principle of equal treatment.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 128.
- Disability retirement decisions treated as quasi-judicial and attract IMFAT’s appellate authority distinct from managerial discretion.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 112-128.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), paras. 45-54.
- Individual managerial-discretion decisions may require multiple-factor review, with some factors warranting stricter scrutiny.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 107-108.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), para. 44.
- Greater scrutiny where the contested decision allegedly violated a universally recognized human right.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 117.
- Heightened scrutiny applied to quasi-judicial decisions, e.g., disciplinary and disability retirement decisions.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 112-128.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), paras. 45-54.
- Review intensity may vary according to the nature of the decision, grounds of contestation, and authority or expertise of decision maker.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 99-110.
  - Judgment No. 2003-2 (Ms. “K”), paras. 40, 44-45.
- Tribunal will not substitute its judgment for that of the authority in which discretion has been conferred.
  - Judgment No. 2002-1 (Mr. “R”), paras. 33-34, 65.
- Tribunal makes its own findings of fact and law and weighs the Grievance Committee record as evidence.
  - Judgment No. 1996-1 (Mr. M. D’Aoust), para. 17.
  - Judgment No. 1999-2 (Mr. “V”), para. 129.

### Statistics and use of statistical evidence
- No abuse of discretion in basing ad hoc discrimination review on qualitative considerations as well as statistical data.
  - Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 18-21.
  - Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 74.
- DRE outcomes are not probative of discrimination in the DRE process or in the Applicant’s case.
  - Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), paras. 28, 112.
  - Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), para. 115.

### Statute of the IMFAT — scope, amendment, and key articles
- Statute may be amended only by the Fund’s Board of Governors.
  - Judgment No. 1999-1 (Mr. “A”), para. 59.
- Numerous judgments interpret and apply Articles II through XX and other provisions of the Statute; representative citations include:
  - Article II and subparts: Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), para. 42; Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 97, 114; Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), note 1.
  - Article V and subparts: Judgment No. 1998-1 (Ms. “Y”), paras. 25, 33-43; Judgment No. 2001-1 (Estate of Mr. “D”), paras. 64-128; Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 94-100, 106, 111.
  - Article VI and subparts: Judgment No. 1998-1 (Ms. “Y”), para. 25; Judgment No. 2005-3 (Baker et al.) (Admissibility of the Applications), paras. 13, 22 and note 5.
  - Article X and subparts: Judgment No. 2001-1 (Estate of Mr. “D”), para. 135; Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 12, 14 and note 8.
  - Article XIV: Judgment No. 1997-1 (Ms. “C”), para. 44; Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), para. 178; Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), Decision.

### Statute of limitations and time-related doctrines
- Tribunal reluctant to impute to Applicants a knowing relinquishment of right to judicial review in the circumstances of the case.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 105, 111.
- Time for filing an Application following dismissal of grievance for lack of jurisdiction addressed in Judgment No. 2001-1 (Estate of Mr. “D”), note 18.
- Filing period is triggered by management’s final decision as to relief provided to Applicant at conclusion of Grievance process.
  - Judgment No. 2005-2 (Ms. “W”), para. 58.
- Waiver of time limits may be justified by “exceptional circumstances,” including:
  - For non-staff members challenging denial of SRP Section 11.3 request where absence of notification by Fund of review procedures.
    - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), para. 108.
  - Where uncertainty by Fund and Applicants as to Tribunal’s jurisdiction ratione personæ in the circumstances of the case.
    - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 110-111.
- Waiver requests outcomes:
  - Denied for filing amended Applications.
    - Judgment No. 2005-3 (Baker et al.) (Admissibility of the Applications), para. 4.
  - Granted where “exigent personal circumstances” justified filing two months late.
    - Judgment No. 2005-4 (Ms. “Z”), note 1.

### Summary dismissal and admissibility
- Tribunal follows summary dismissal for failure to exhaust administrative-review channels.
  - Judgment No. 2002-2 (Ms. “Y” (No. 2)), paras. 4, 26-29.
- “Clearly inadmissible” standard articulated.
  - Judgment No. 2005-3 (Baker et al.) (Admissibility of the Applications), paras. 20, 23.
  - Judgment No. 2006-5 (Ms. “AA”), para. 42.
- Motions for summary dismissal may be granted for failure to exhaust channels, lack of jurisdiction ratione personæ or ratione materiæ, or lack of jurisdiction ratione temporis.
  - Examples: Judgment No. 1998-1 (Ms. “Y”), para. 43, Decision; Judgment No. 1999-1 (Mr. “A”), para. 100, Decision; Judgment No. 1994-1 (Mr. “X”), Decision.

### Related employment and procedural topics reflected in case law
- Time-in-grade requirements: exceptions, rationale, and “underfilling” policy permitting promotion despite incomplete meeting of vacancy requirements.
  - Judgment No. 1997-2 (Ms. “B”), paras. 10, 12, 24, 33, 60, 69-70, 72-77.
- Transfer authority of the organization.
  - Judgment No. 1997-1 (Ms. “C”), paras. 10, 30-31.
- Transparency of personnel practices and rationale for SBF report circulation.
  - Judgment No. 1996-1 (Mr. M. D’Aoust), para. 36.
  - Judgment No. 1999-2 (Mr. “V”), paras. 19, 96, 102.
- Workers’ Compensation and its intersection with medical separation and disability retirement claims; ripeness and regulatory framework addressed.
  - Judgment No. 2003-1 (Ms. “J”), paras. 27, 28-32, 70, 76, 146-151.
- Protection from impermissible discrimination for child born out of wedlock under universally accepted principles of human rights.
  - Judgment No. 2006-6 (Ms. “M” and Dr. “M”), paras. 130, 133.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/index1.pdf_