## Administrative Tribunal decision — j2006-5

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Administrative Tribunal decision — j2006-5](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2006-5.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2006-5.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2006-5.pdf.json)

---

### Proceedings and parties
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund met on November 27, 2006, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges, to adjudge the Motion for Summary Dismissal of the case brought against the International Monetary Fund by Ms. “AA”, a former staff member of the Fund.
- Applicant contests the decision not to convert her fixed-term appointment to a regular staff position and alleges harassment and a hostile work environment in contravention of the Fund’s internal law, which she contends affected her work performance and appraisal, resulting in non-conversion.
- The Fund’s Grievance Committee dismissed Applicant’s Grievance on the ground that she had failed to pursue on a timely basis the administrative review process prerequisite to filing the Grievance.
- The Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal in the Administrative Tribunal, contending Applicant did not exhaust administrative review channels required by Article V of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- Applicant contends exceptional circumstances excuse her delay, alleging she only became aware after leaving employment that the harassment was part of a pattern and practice in her work unit.

### Procedural posture and scope
- A Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the period for answering the Application until the Motion is acted on by the Tribunal; at this stage the case is limited to the question of admissibility.
- Key procedural timeline and steps:
  - Ms. “AA” filed her Application on February 27, 2006; Application transmitted to Respondent on March 1, 2006.
  - On March 9, 2006, pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f), the Registrar circulated within the Fund a notice summarizing the issues raised in the Application.
  - On March 31, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule XII; the Motion was transmitted to Applicant on the same day.
  - On April 26, 2006, Applicant filed an Objection to the Motion (pursuant to Rule XII, para. 5).
  - On April 27, 2006, the President of the Administrative Tribunal, pursuant to Rule XXI, para. 3, requested Respondent’s views on Applicant’s requests for (a) anonymity, and (b) oral proceedings (insofar as the request reflected a request for oral proceedings on the issue of admissibility); Respondent’s views were submitted on May 12, 2006 and transmitted to Applicant.
- Consideration at this stage is confined to admissibility because the Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the answer period under Rule XII, para. 2.

### Request for anonymity
- Applicant requested anonymity pursuant to Rule VII, para. 2(j) and Rule XXII, alleging she was the victim of “egregious behavior, harassment and a hostile work environment” and that, “... if the remedy of reinstatement is granted, the Applicant will face possible retribution and/or retaliation in the Fund.”
- The Fund “strongly object[ed] to applicant’s statements regarding the reasons for her request for anonymity,” but stated it had no objection to the request for anonymity itself.
- Rule XXII (Anonymity) provisions summarized:
  - An Applicant may request that his name not be made public by the Tribunal (Rule XXII, para. 1).
  - The Fund may request that the name of any other individual not be made public; an intervenor may request anonymity (Rule XXII, para. 2).
  - Parties are given opportunity to present their views to the Tribunal in response to a request for anonymity (Rule XXII, para. 3).
  - The Tribunal shall grant a request for anonymity where good cause has been shown for protecting the privacy of an individual (Rule XXII, para. 4).
- Tribunal reasoning and outcome on anonymity:
  - The burden to show “good cause” rests with the party seeking anonymity; Rule XXII is an exception to the general rule of making public parties’ names.
  - International administrative tribunal practice treats disclosure as the rule and confidentiality as the exception; anonymity is typically granted in cases involving alleged misconduct, personal health, or family relations.
  - The Tribunal may not grant anonymity solely on the basis of party consent; a showing of “good cause” is required.
  - Because the Application was found inadmissible and the Tribunal had not tested the Applicant’s allegations, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to treat the Applicant’s name anonymously in order to protect supervisors from untested allegations.

### Request for oral proceedings
- Rule XIII, para. 1 (as amended in 2004) permits oral proceedings “... if, on its own initiative or at the request of a party and following an opportunity for the opposing party to present its views ..., the Tribunal deems such proceedings useful.”
- Applicant requested oral proceedings to establish through testimony the truth of the facts supporting timeliness of her request for review.
- Respondent maintained there was no disputed issue of fact as to admissibility and oral proceedings were not warranted.
- The Tribunal concluded it could decide admissibility on the pleadings and documentary evidence alone and denied oral proceedings for the admissibility stage.

### Factual background
- Employment and non-conversion:
  - Applicant was employed on a two-year fixed-term appointment from September 17, 2001 through September 16, 2003.
  - She served at Grade A9 in a position initially designated as a Deputy Section Chief and later reclassified.
  - On March 20, 2003, Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was not converted on the ground of inadequate performance; upon expiration of her appointment she left the Fund’s employment.
- Subsequent information alleged by Applicant:
  - In January 2005, Applicant alleges she received a telephone call from the staff member who succeeded her and who served under the same supervisors; that successor communicated that she and others in the division were experiencing harassment.

### Channels of administrative review and timeliness
- Central issue: whether Applicant fulfilled the exhaustion of remedies requirement of Article V of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- It is undisputed that Applicant did not initiate administrative review procedures within the six-month period following either the non-conversion decision or the conclusion of her employment.
- The Fund declined to undertake an administrative review on the basis that Applicant failed to make her request for review within the time limits prescribed by GAO No. 31.
- Steps Applicant took toward administrative review:
  - By letter of May 4, 2005, Applicant, through counsel, submitted a “Request for Review of [her] Appointment Expiration” to the Fund’s First Deputy Managing Director, asserting she had recently learned that performance shortcomings attributed to her were pre-textual and were caused by a hostile work environment and pattern and practice of isolation, manipulation and intimidation by supervisors and subordinates.
  - The First Deputy Managing Director referred the request to the Director of the Department of Human Resources (HRD).
  - On May 27, 2005, HRD asked Applicant’s counsel to supplement the request with an explanation of what “new facts” had come to Applicant’s attention and how they were relevant to the complaint, noting the Fund would take such information into account in deciding “... whether an administrative review is permitted under GAO No. 31.”
  - Applicant’s counsel responded on June 14, 2005, alleging that, more than a year after Applicant left the Fund, her successor alerted her that others in the division were experiencing harassment and presented examples described as “eerily similar” to Applicant’s experience; counsel asserted these were “new facts” showing systemic deliberate egregious behavior constituting a pattern or practice of harassment, intimidation, and a hostile work environment in violation of the Fund’s personnel policies.
- Applicant sought administrative review of the non-conversion decision “... which she did not know was unjustified until these facts were brought to her attention.”

### Background / procedural history (continued)
- By letter of July 15, 2005, the HRD Director responded that the facts alleged by Ms. “AA” did not provide a basis for undertaking administrative review of her “belated challenge,” concluding that “[w]hile the ‘new information’ that has recently come to her attention about the alleged experiences of another staff member may explain her motivation in bringing the complaint now, it cannot explain her failure to do so previously.”
- On August 5, 2005, Applicant filed a Grievance with the Fund’s Grievance Committee.
- By order of December 20, 2005, the Grievance Committee dismissed the Grievance as untimely on the grounds that Ms. “AA” “... knew or should have known the staff rules applicable to the dispute resolution process during her Fund employment [and] ... by her own admission, ‘knew in late 2003 of the fact that she was being harassed and that her performance appraisals did not reflect her true performance.’”
- On February 27, 2006, Ms. “AA” filed her Application with the Administrative Tribunal.

### Parties’ principal contentions
- Applicant’s contentions on the merits:
  - Applicant was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment in contravention of Fund rules.
  - The decision not to convert Applicant’s fixed-term appointment to regular staff was impermissibly affected by this harassment.
  - The harassment and hostile work environment unfairly affected both her work performance and the appraisal thereof; the assessment did not reflect her true performance.
  - Applicant seeks as relief:
    - rescission of the non-conversion decision;
    - reinstatement and appointment as a regular staff member with retroactive pay and benefits;
    - moral and punitive damages;
    - attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Respondent’s contentions on admissibility:
  - Applicant failed to challenge the non-conversion decision or any aspect of her treatment by supervisors within the time limits prescribed by GAO No. 31, and, therefore, her Application in the Tribunal is inadmissible.
  - Applicant’s claim of “exceptional circumstances” to excuse her delay is without merit.
  - Neither the “discovery rule” nor “equitable tolling” excuse Applicant’s delay. Her complaint involves facts that by their nature would have been known to Applicant at the time they occurred. Moreover, the record demonstrates that during the term of her Fund employment Applicant believed that her negative performance reviews were unjustified.
  - Information concerning the experience of other staff members might be relevant to Applicant’s claims but was not essential to them.
  - As a Fund staff member, applicant must be presumed to have had knowledge of the rules governing the dispute resolution process.
- Applicant’s contentions on admissibility:
  - Applicant’s request for administrative review was timely under the “discovery rule” because it was made within six months of when Applicant learned of all of the facts essential to support her claims.
  - Applicant did not discover, and could not have discovered, until after she left the Fund, all of the essential elements of her claim because not until January 2005, upon learning of another staff member’s experience, did Applicant know that she had been subjected to a pattern or practice of impermissible conduct.
  - The doctrine of “equitable tolling” applies because Applicant, despite all due diligence, was unable to obtain earlier than January 2005 the essential facts bearing on the existence of her claim.
  - Applicant was not given notice of the applicable recourse procedures at the time of the non-conversion of her appointment.

### Admissibility analysis by the Tribunal
- Governing requirement:
  - Article V, Section 1 of the Tribunal’s Statute: “When the Fund has established channels of administrative review for the settlement of disputes, an application may be filed with the Tribunal only after the applicant has exhausted all available channels of administrative review.”
- Relevance of Grievance Committee decision:
  - The Grievance Committee’s finding that the Grievance was barred as untimely is “relevant to but not necessarily dispositive” of exhaustion for Article V, Section 1 purposes; the Tribunal decides for itself whether channels have been exhausted (Estate of Mr. “D”, para. 85 and para. 91).
- Purposes of exhaustion and timeliness:
  - Purposes include providing opportunities for resolution and building a detailed record; prompt exhaustion allows the institution to rectify errors when memories are fresh and documents are at hand (Estate of Mr. “D”, paras. 66, 95, 102, 108, 104).
  - “Exceptional circumstances” should not easily be found given the importance of exhaustion and time limits.
- Undisputed procedural facts:
  - Applicant did not initiate administrative review of the non-conversion decision, or related supervisory actions, until more than two years following the non-conversion decision and almost twenty months after the conclusion of her employment with the Fund.
- Applicable time-limit rule:
  - GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, Section 6.02 requires that a request for administrative review of a decision concerning a staff member’s work or career must be made “...within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member ....”
- Applicant’s discovery- and equitable-tolling arguments considered:
  - Applicant contends she first acquired all essential elements in January 2005 when she learned of another staff member’s experience and thus requested review within six months of that discovery.
  - Applicant cites Staff Bulletin No. 99/15 (June 18, 1999), Attachment, para. 10: “Another important element to consider is the extent to which the conduct interferes with the working environment. Mildly offensive comments or behaviors can rise to the level of harassment if they are repeated or become pervasive. At the same time, a single incident will be considered harassment if it is so severe that it poisons the overall working environment.”
  - The Tribunal noted statutory and precedent constraints (e.g., ILOAT precedents In re Saunders, Judgment No. 1466 (1996); In re Schulz, Judgment No. 575 (1983)) emphasizing that time limits are objective and begin when a decision is notified.
- Tribunal’s factual finding on notice:
  - The Tribunal concluded that Applicant “knew in late 2003 of the fact that she was being harassed and that her performance appraisals did not reflect her true performance.”
  - Applicant’s contemporaneous pleas for assistance to Fund officials (Senior Personnel Manager, the Ombudsperson, and the Health Services Unit) demonstrate awareness of stress from being blamed for poor performance.
  - That knowledge was sufficient to make out a harassment claim under the Fund’s policy definition at para. 3: “Harassment is any behavior, verbal or physical, that unreasonably interferes with work or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”
- On whether a “pattern or practice” was essential:
  - The Tribunal found it unnecessary in every case to show a “pattern or practice” to bring a harassment complaint; a single severe incident can suffice.
- On equitable tolling and notice of procedures:
  - The Tribunal reaffirmed that, as a general rule, lack of individual notification of review procedures does not excuse failure to comply with such procedures (Estate of Mr. “D”, para. 120) and found no basis to depart from that rule for a fixed-term staff member in these circumstances.

### Findings and decision
- The Tribunal concluded that Applicant has not established “exceptional circumstances” to excuse her substantial delay in instituting a request for review pursuant to the Fund’s internal recourse procedures.
- Applicant did not meet the exhaustion of remedies requirement of Article V, Section 1 of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- The Application was held to be “clearly inadmissible” (Rule XII) and was summarily dismissed.
- Decision: The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that the Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Application is granted.

*Administrative Tribunal decision — Washington, D.C., November 27, 2006.*

### Introduction

### Introduction

### Proceedings and parties
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund met on November 27, 2006, composed of Judge Stephen M. Schwebel, President, and Judges Nisuke Ando and Michel Gentot, Associate Judges, to adjudge the Motion for Summary Dismissal of the case brought against the International Monetary Fund by Ms. “AA”, a former staff member of the Fund.
- Applicant contests the decision not to convert her fixed-term appointment to a regular staff position and alleges harassment and a hostile work environment in contravention of the Fund’s internal law, which she contends affected her work performance and appraisal, resulting in non-conversion.
- The Fund’s Grievance Committee dismissed Applicant’s Grievance on the ground that she had failed to pursue on a timely basis the administrative review process prerequisite to filing the Grievance.
- The Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal in the Administrative Tribunal, contending Applicant did not exhaust administrative review channels required by Article V of the Tribunal’s Statute. Applicant contends exceptional circumstances excuse her delay, alleging she only became aware after leaving employment that the harassment was part of a pattern and practice in her work unit.

### Procedural posture and scope
- A Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the period for answering the Application until the Motion is acted on by the Tribunal; at this stage the case is limited to the question of admissibility.
- Key procedural timeline and steps:
  - Ms. “AA” filed her Application on February 27, 2006; Application transmitted to Respondent on March 1, 2006.
  - On March 9, 2006, pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f), the Registrar circulated within the Fund a notice summarizing the issues raised in the Application.
  - On March 31, 2006, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal pursuant to Rule XII; the Motion was transmitted to Applicant on the same day.
  - On April 26, 2006, Applicant filed an Objection to the Motion (pursuant to Rule XII, para. 5).
  - On April 27, 2006, the President of the Administrative Tribunal, pursuant to Rule XXI, para. 3, requested Respondent’s views on Applicant’s requests for (a) anonymity, and (b) oral proceedings (insofar as the request reflected a request for oral proceedings on the issue of admissibility); Respondent’s views were submitted on May 12, 2006 and transmitted to Applicant.
- Because the Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the answer period under Rule XII, para. 2, consideration is confined to admissibility.

### Request for anonymity
- Applicant requested anonymity pursuant to Rule VII, para. 2(j) and Rule XXII, alleging she was the victim of “egregious behavior, harassment and a hostile work environment” and that, “... if the remedy of reinstatement is granted, the Applicant will face possible retribution and/or retaliation in the Fund.”
- The Fund’s response: while “strongly objecting to applicant’s statements regarding the reasons for her request for anonymity, the Fund has no objection to the request for anonymity itself.”
- Rule XXII (Anonymity) provisions:
  - An Applicant may request that his name not be made public by the Tribunal (Rule XXII, para. 1).
  - The Fund may request that the name of any other individual not be made public; an intervenor may request anonymity (Rule XXII, para. 2).
  - Parties are given opportunity to present their views to the Tribunal in response to a request for anonymity (Rule XXII, para. 3).
  - The Tribunal shall grant a request for anonymity where good cause has been shown for protecting the privacy of an individual (Rule XXII, para. 4).
- Tribunal reasoning on anonymity:
  - The burden to show “good cause” rests with the party seeking anonymity; Rule XXII is an exception to the general rule of making public parties’ names.
  - International administrative tribunal practice generally treats disclosure as the rule and confidentiality as the exception; anonymity is typically granted in cases involving alleged misconduct, personal health, or family relations.
  - The Tribunal concluded that it may not grant anonymity solely on the basis of party consent; a showing of “good cause” is required.
  - Because the Application was found inadmissible and the Tribunal had not tested the Applicant’s allegations, the Tribunal deemed it appropriate to treat the Applicant’s name anonymously in order to protect supervisors from untested allegations.

### Request for oral proceedings
- Rule XIII, para. 1 (as amended in 2004) permits oral proceedings “... if, on its own initiative or at the request of a party and following an opportunity for the opposing party to present its views ..., the Tribunal deems such proceedings useful.”
- Applicant requested oral proceedings to establish through testimony the truth of the facts supporting timeliness of her request for review.
- Respondent maintained there was no disputed issue of fact as to admissibility and oral proceedings were not warranted.
- The Tribunal concluded it could decide admissibility on the pleadings and documentary evidence alone and denied oral proceedings for the admissibility stage.

### Factual background
- Applicant’s employment details and non-conversion:
  - Applicant was employed on a two-year fixed-term appointment from September 17, 2001 through September 16, 2003.
  - She served at Grade A9 in a position initially designated as a Deputy Section Chief and later reclassified.
  - On March 20, 2003, Applicant’s fixed-term appointment was not converted on the ground of inadequate performance; upon expiration of her appointment she left the Fund’s employment.
- Alleged subsequent information:
  - In January 2005, Applicant alleges she received a telephone call from the staff member who succeeded her and who served under the same supervisors; that successor communicated that she and others in the division were experiencing harassment.

### Channels of administrative review and timeliness
- Central issue: whether Applicant fulfilled the exhaustion of remedies requirement of Article V of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- It is undisputed that Applicant did not initiate administrative review procedures within the six-month period following either the non-conversion decision or the conclusion of her employment.
- The Fund declined to undertake an administrative review on the basis that Applicant failed to make her request for review within the time limits prescribed by GAO No. 31.
- Steps Applicant took toward administrative review:
  - By letter of May 4, 2005, Applicant, through counsel, submitted a “Request for Review of [her] Appointment Expiration” to the Fund’s First Deputy Managing Director, asserting she had recently learned that performance shortcomings attributed to her were pre-textual and were caused by a hostile work environment and pattern and practice of isolation, manipulation and intimidation by supervisors and subordinates.
  - The First Deputy Managing Director referred the request to the Director of the Department of Human Resources (HRD).
  - On May 27, 2005, HRD asked Applicant’s counsel to supplement the request with an explanation of what “new facts” had come to Applicant’s attention and how they were relevant to the complaint, noting the Fund would take such information into account in deciding “... whether an administrative review is permitted under GAO No. 31.”
  - Applicant’s counsel responded on June 14, 2005, alleging that, more than a year after Applicant left the Fund, her successor alerted her that others in the division were experiencing harassment and presented examples described as “eerily similar” to Applicant’s experience; counsel asserted these were “new facts” showing systemic deliberate egregious behavior constituting a pattern or practice of harassment, intimidation, and a hostile work environment in violation of the Fund’s personnel policies.
- Applicant sought administrative review of the non-conversion decision “... which she did not know was unjustified until these facts were brought to her attention.”

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Introduction (j2006-5).*

### 25.      By letter of July 15, 2005, the HRD Director responded that the facts alleged by

### j2006-5 - 25.

### Background / Procedural history
- By letter of July 15, 2005, the HRD Director responded that the facts alleged by Ms. “AA” did not provide a basis for undertaking administrative review of her “belated challenge,” concluding that “[w]hile the ‘new information’ that has recently come to her attention about the alleged experiences of another staff member may explain her motivation in bringing the complaint now, it cannot explain her failure to do so previously.”
- On August 5, 2005, Applicant filed a Grievance with the Fund’s Grievance Committee.
- By order of December 20, 2005, the Grievance Committee dismissed the Grievance as untimely on the grounds that Ms. “AA” “... knew or should have known the staff rules applicable to the dispute resolution process during her Fund employment [and] ... by her own admission, ‘knew in late 2003 of the fact that she was being harassed and that her performance appraisals did not reflect her true performance.’”
- On February 27, 2006, Ms. “AA” filed her Application with the Administrative Tribunal.

### Parties’ principal contentions
- Applicant’s contentions on the merits:
  - Applicant was subjected to harassment and a hostile work environment in contravention of Fund rules.
  - The decision not to convert Applicant’s fixed-term appointment to regular staff was impermissibly affected by this harassment.
  - The harassment and hostile work environment unfairly affected both her work performance and the appraisal thereof; the assessment did not reflect her true performance.
  - Applicant seeks as relief:
    - rescission of the non-conversion decision;
    - reinstatement and appointment as a regular staff member with retroactive pay and benefits;
    - moral and punitive damages;
    - attorneys’ fees and costs.
- Respondent’s contentions on admissibility:
  - Applicant failed to challenge the non-conversion decision or any aspect of her treatment by supervisors within the time limits prescribed by GAO No. 31, and, therefore, her Application in the Tribunal is inadmissible.
  - Applicant’s claim of “exceptional circumstances” to excuse her delay in initiating administrative review is without merit.
  - Neither the “discovery rule” nor “equitable tolling” excuse Applicant’s delay. Her complaint involves facts that by their nature would have been known to Applicant at the time they occurred. Moreover, the record demonstrates that during the term of her Fund employment Applicant believed that her negative performance reviews were unjustified.
  - Information concerning the experience of other staff members might be relevant to Applicant’s claims but was not essential to them.
  - As a Fund staff member, applicant must be presumed to have had knowledge of the rules governing the dispute resolution process.
- Applicant’s contentions on admissibility:
  - Applicant’s request for administrative review was timely under the “discovery rule” because it was made within six months of when Applicant learned of all of the facts essential to support her claims.
  - Applicant did not discover, and could not have discovered, until after she left the Fund, all of the essential elements of her claim because not until January 2005, upon learning of another staff member’s experience, did Applicant know that she had been subjected to a pattern or practice of impermissible conduct.
  - The doctrine of “equitable tolling” applies because Applicant, despite all due diligence, was unable to obtain earlier than January 2005 the essential facts bearing on the existence of her claim.
  - Applicant was not given notice of the applicable recourse procedures at the time of the non-conversion of her appointment.

### Admissibility analysis by the Tribunal
- Governing requirement:
  - Article V, Section 1 of the Tribunal’s Statute: “When the Fund has established channels of administrative review for the settlement of disputes, an application may be filed with the Tribunal only after the applicant has exhausted all available channels of administrative review.”
- Relevance of Grievance Committee decision:
  - The Grievance Committee’s finding that the Grievance was barred as untimely is “relevant to but not necessarily dispositive” of exhaustion for Article V, Section 1 purposes; the Tribunal decides for itself whether channels have been exhausted (Estate of Mr. “D”, para. 85 and para. 91).
- Purposes of exhaustion and timeliness:
  - Purposes include providing opportunities for resolution and building a detailed record; prompt exhaustion allows the institution to rectify errors when memories are fresh and documents are at hand (Estate of Mr. “D”, paras. 66, 95, 102, 108, 104).
  - “Exceptional circumstances” should not easily be found given the importance of exhaustion and time limits.
- Undisputed procedural facts:
  - Applicant did not initiate administrative review of the non-conversion decision, or related supervisory actions, until more than two years following the non-conversion decision and almost twenty months after the conclusion of her employment with the Fund.
- Applicable time-limit rule:
  - GAO No. 31, Rev. 3, Section 6.02 requires that a request for administrative review of a decision concerning a staff member’s work or career must be made “...within six months after the challenged decision was made or communicated to the staff member ....”
- Applicant’s discovery- and equitable-tolling arguments considered:
  - Applicant contends she first acquired all essential elements in January 2005 when she learned of another staff member’s experience and thus requested review within six months of that discovery.
  - Applicant cites Staff Bulletin No. 99/15 (June 18, 1999), Attachment, para. 10: “Another important element to consider is the extent to which the conduct interferes with the working environment. Mildly offensive comments or behaviors can rise to the level of harassment if they are repeated or become pervasive. At the same time, a single incident will be considered harassment if it is so severe that it poisons the overall working environment.”
  - The Tribunal noted statutory and precedent constraints (e.g., ILOAT precedents In re Saunders, Judgment No. 1466 (1996); In re Schulz, Judgment No. 575 (1983)) emphasizing that time limits are objective and begin when a decision is notified.
- Tribunal’s factual finding on notice:
  - The Tribunal concluded that Applicant “knew in late 2003 of the fact that she was being harassed and that her performance appraisals did not reflect her true performance.”
  - Applicant’s contemporaneous pleas for assistance to Fund officials (Senior Personnel Manager, the Ombudsperson, and the Health Services Unit) demonstrate awareness of stress from being blamed for poor performance.
  - That knowledge was sufficient to make out a harassment claim under the Fund’s policy definition at para. 3: “Harassment is any behavior, verbal or physical, that unreasonably interferes with work or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive work environment.”
- On whether a “pattern or practice” was essential:
  - The Tribunal found it unnecessary in every case to show a “pattern or practice” to bring a harassment complaint; a single severe incident can suffice.
- On equitable tolling and notice of procedures:
  - The Tribunal reaffirmed that, as a general rule, lack of individual notification of review procedures does not excuse failure to comply with such procedures (Estate of Mr. “D”, para. 120) and found no basis to depart from that rule for a fixed-term staff member in these circumstances.

### Findings and decision
- The Tribunal concluded that Applicant has not established “exceptional circumstances” to excuse her substantial delay in instituting a request for review pursuant to the Fund’s internal recourse procedures.
- Applicant did not meet the exhaustion of remedies requirement of Article V, Section 1 of the Tribunal’s Statute.
- The Application was held to be “clearly inadmissible” (Rule XII) and was summarily dismissed.
- Decision: The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that the Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Application is granted.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2006-5.pdf_