## Administrative Tribunal Judgment (Admissibility): Application of Ms. “GG” (October 8, 2013) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [Administrative Tribunal Judgment (Admissibility): Application of Ms. “GG” (October 8, 2013)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2013-3.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2013-3.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2013-3.pdf.json) --- ### Case overview - Tribunal composition: Judge Catherine M. O’Regan, President; Judges Jan Paulsson and Edith Brown Weiss (constituted pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute). - Parties: - Applicant: Ms. “GG” (self-represented). - Respondent: International Monetary Fund (represented by Ms. Diana Benoit, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Erik Plith, Counsel, IMF Legal Department). - Applicant’s claims: - Contest of non-selection for a single B1 position in one Department in 2009 (when no appointment was made) and in 2010 (when an appointment was made). - Contest of Fund’s failure to appoint her to a different B1 position in the same Department in 2011. - Challenge to elements of a revised promotion policy adopted by the Fund in 2011 and its application in her case, asserting the policy is arbitrary and discriminatory. - Allegation of a pattern of harassment, retaliation and discrimination by a senior manager in her Department. - Challenge to decisions during administrative review and Grievance Committee processes as failures of due process that materially impair the evidentiary record before the Tribunal. - Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal seeking dismissal of all claims on multiple bases. ### Procedural history and timeline - Application filed with the Administrative Tribunal on July 23, 2012; corrected on August 6, 2012 pursuant to Rule VII, para. 6; transmitted to Respondent on August 7, 2012. - Registrar circulated a notice summarizing the issues on August 20, 2012 pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f). - Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal on September 6, 2012 pursuant to Rule XII; transmitted to Applicant on September 7, 2012. - Applicant filed an Objection to the Motion on October 4, 2012 pursuant to Rule XII, para. 5. - Tribunal postponed adjudication pending related Grievance proceedings expected to conclude in early 2013; later advised these would unlikely conclude before fall 2013 and scheduled the Motion for determination. - Tribunal decided not to hold oral proceedings on the Motion (neither party had requested oral proceedings). - Effect of Motion for Summary Dismissal: suspends the period for answering the Application and limits review at this stage to admissibility. ### Applicant’s request for anonymity and Tribunal ruling - Applicant requested anonymity pursuant to Rule XXII; Respondent opposed. - Rule XXII standard: grant anonymity “where good cause has been shown for protecting the privacy of an individual.” - Applicant’s grounds: protect her privacy and that of other staff members; case involves sexual harassment, other harassment, retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and other misconduct, and discrimination and bias. - Respondent’s position: core challenge concerns career decisions, including performance ratings and promotions, which it contends are not “matters of personal privacy.” - Tribunal precedent: anonymity generally granted in cases involving alleged misconduct or matters of personal privacy; multiple prior judgments cited finding allegations of misconduct warrant anonymity. - Tribunal conclusion: - The Application concerns allegations of misconduct by staff members and a claim of a pattern of harassment, discrimination and retaliation; such conduct, if established, would constitute serious misconduct. - Granted Applicant’s request that her name not be made public and protected identities of other staff members affected by the events under consideration. ### Factual background (Applicant’s version) - The Tribunal notes the Fund had not filed an Answer on the merits at this stage; facts reflect only Applicant’s version. - Applicant is an economist in one of the Fund’s departments. - In 2007 Applicant reported alleged misconduct by her immediate supervisor to the Department Director, including: - sexual harassment of a consultant while on mission, - a biased attempt to prevent conversion of a term staff member to permanent staff, - sexist and racist comments, - inappropriate interference to provide advantages to “selected attractive young women”, - hostility towards Applicant’s staff. - During the 2007 APR round Applicant’s APR rating and MAR (Merit-to-Allocation Ratio) declined “precipitously” despite an asserted increase in responsibilities, performance and outputs. - Applicant alleges retaliation: immediate supervisor originally graded her “outstanding” but Department Director reduced rating to “average”; similar pattern repeated in 2008 and 2009 APR rounds. - 2009 Review Committee (RC) nomination: - Three members of the Review Committee stated she was “very competitive” for the RC list; Department Director attended the Review Committee meeting, gave reasons why Applicant’s name should not be added, and Applicant’s name was not included. - 2009 B-level vacancy: - Applicant initially ineligible because not on RC list; selection committee later decided no eligible candidates had applied, A15 staff not on the RC list were notified and told they could apply. - Applicant applied and was interviewed. - Email in the record: interviewing panel unanimously thought Applicant had the best interview, but Department nevertheless chose a different candidate, despite one panel member explicitly voting against that candidate. - Applicant reports being told by the Department Director that she could improve APRs by using “charm, humor, and personal appeal” to him; Applicant considered this response to be sexual harassment. - Applicant met with the Ombudsperson to complain of a pattern of sexual harassment by her Department Director since 2007; she also met with the Human Resources Department (HRD) Director, who did not initiate an investigation. - The 2009 vacancy was filled in 2010 by the candidate preferred by the Department Director. - 2011 B1 vacancy in Applicant’s Department: Applicant did not apply because the Department Director would be the immediate supervisor and Applicant feared further endangering herself. - Applicant was later appointed to a B1 vacancy in a different Department. - Applicant asserts she was not aware at acceptance that a change in promotion policy would be announced on July 1, 2011 extending time-in-grade requirement for promotion from B1 to B2 from twelve months to eighteen months. - Applicant asserts her supervisors wrote to HRD requesting she be “grandfathered” under the old rules; no response was received from HRD. ### Channels of administrative review and chronology of grievances - December 8, 2010: Applicant filed a request for administrative review of her 2010 APR rating (“the original challenge”), alleging retaliation, discrimination and a pattern of discrimination, harassment and retaliation over several years. - April 13, 2011: HRD denied the administrative review of the 2010 APR rating. - June 9, 2011: Applicant filed a Grievance with the Fund’s Grievance Committee. - Fund’s witnesses testified at Grievance Committee proceedings on September 15 and 16, 2011. - October 14, 2011: Fund produced an email in response to a discovery request; Applicant contends the email “tainted the vacancy selection” for the 2009 position. - November 14, 2011: Applicant filed a request for administrative review of the non-selection decisions of 2009, 2010 and 2011, the new promotion policy, and the effective date of her promotion (“the new challenges”). - December 13, 2011: HRD denied the new request for administrative review. - December 16, 2011: Applicant took the new challenges to the Grievance Committee. - January 6, 2012: Fund filed a Motion to Dismiss the new challenges; Applicant responded on March 30, 2012. - April 25, 2012: Grievance Committee granted the Motion and dismissed Applicant’s new challenges. - April 30, 2012: Applicant sent an email to the Grievance Committee asserting factual and other errors; Grievance Committee construed it as a Motion for Reconsideration. - May 30, 2012: Grievance Committee denied the Motion for Reconsideration. - June 8, 2012: Fund informed Applicant that the Grievance Committee’s dismissal of the new challenges should be considered final with effect from that date. - Grievance Committee proceedings regarding the initial challenge to the 2010 APR rating were suspended in late 2011 following a Fund Motion relying on an authorized Ethics Office investigation into conduct of Applicant’s supervisors; parties agreed to resume the Grievance Committee proceedings in mid-2012. Applicant provided testimony and presented two witnesses. At the time of preparation of the Judgment, the Grievance Committee had not yet issued its Recommendation and Report in respect of Applicant’s initial Grievance (to the knowledge of the Tribunal). ### Parties’ principal contentions relating to the Motion for Summary Dismissal - Respondent’s principal arguments: 1. Applicant’s challenges to the three non-selection decisions (in 2009, 2010 and 2011) were not launched within the six-month period stipulated in GAO No. 31, Section 6, and no exceptional circumstances exist to excuse the delay. 2. Applicant did not apply for two of the positions in issue (those filled in 2010 and 2011) and so lacks standing to challenge her non-selection. - Applicant’s principal arguments (summarized by the Tribunal): - 2009 non-selection decision timeliness: - Acknowledges challenge was not brought within GAO No. 31, Section 6 time limits but asserts “exceptional circumstances” warrant relaxation of the time limits. - Three grounds claimed as “exceptional circumstances”: - Only became aware on October 14, 2011 of the discriminatory conduct that had adversely affected her in relation to the non-selection decision. - Decision forms part of a pattern of discriminatory conduct by senior managers; Tribunal should account for incidents forming part of a pattern even when individual incidents were not the subject of a timely grievance. - Adoption of the doctrine of “recurrent effects” so that a flawed non-selection decision gives rise to a new cause of action each time an aggrieved staff member receives a paycheck less than she or he would have received but for the flawed decision. - 2010 and 2011 non-selection decisions: - Asserts these challenges are timely under GAO No. 31, Section 12 and fall within the time limits in GAO No. 31, Section 6. - Standing: - 2010 decision: asserts she was originally a candidate and the selection committee knew of her candidacy and qualifications. - 2011 decision: asserts she did not apply because sexual harassment by Applicant’s Department Director “effectively barred” her from applying. - Promotion policy: - Launched a timely challenge both to the decision as it applied to her, and to the regulatory decision itself. - Harassment, retaliation, discrimination claims: - Contends “Harassment, retaliation, and discrimination are part of all of the contested decisions before the Tribunal.” - Grievance Committee is considering issues of harassment, retaliation and discrimination in relation to the Applicant’s challenge to the 2010 APR decision; contends all decisions before the Tribunal are “infected by these improper motives and misconduct.” - Asserts the evidentiary record of the Grievance Committee has been developed and placed before the Tribunal and “no further witnesses are expected.” - Complaints about administrative review and Grievance procedures: - Argues procedural rulings (disclosure of witness list, content of witnesses’ testimony) deterred witnesses for Applicant and excluded relevant evidence. - Asserts denial of access to documents on confidentiality grounds impaired her ability to litigate. ### Tribunal jurisprudence and precedent considerations - Tribunal references Ms. C. O’Connor v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2010-1 (February 8, 2010), noting jurisprudence “strongly favors recourse” to the Grievance Committee because of the detailed legal and factual record produced by that Committee. - Tribunal notes that in O’Connor the claim before it was “closely allied” to a claim pending before the Grievance Committee and that entertaining one claim before the conclusion of the Grievance proceedings would undermine the twin goals of Article V: “providing opportunities for resolution of the dispute and for building a detailed record in the event of subsequent adjudication.” - Tribunal finds the claims in the present case are “closely allied” with the claim pending before the Grievance Committee (the 2010 APR rating decision) and that consideration at this stage might undermine the twin goals of Article V. ### Summary of Tribunal’s procedural conclusions - The Tribunal concludes the Application must be dismissed at this stage for failure to meet the requirements of Article V, Section 1, of the Statute because the Applicant has not “exhausted all available channels of administrative review.” - Dismissal is without prejudice to the Applicant’s right to submit a new application raising the same claims following the conclusion of the Grievance Committee process and Fund Management’s decision, if the Applicant remains dissatisfied with the outcome. - Tribunal did not consider other grounds for summary dismissal raised by Respondent in its Motion; dismissal is without prejudice to Respondent’s right to raise those grounds if a new Application is brought. ### Key findings on admissibility and related procedural matters - The Tribunal finds: - Applicant’s challenge to the regulatory decision that introduced a change in the promotion policy is untimely under Article VI of the Tribunal’s Statute. - Applicant’s claim of harm arising from application of the new policy to her is premature. - Applicant’s claim relating to a pattern of harassment, retaliation and discrimination is under review by the Grievance Committee; therefore Applicant has not exhausted established channels of administrative review as required by Article V, Section 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. - Applicant’s claims of due process failures during the administrative review and Grievance Committee processes do not amount to separate “administrative acts” or “individual decisions” that may be reviewed by the Tribunal and should therefore be dismissed at this stage. ### Final decision and procedural disposition - Tribunal unanimous decision: - The Application of Ms. “GG” is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to Applicant’s right to bring a new Application in due course, and without prejudice to Respondent’s right to raise in response issues of admissibility not disposed of in this Judgment. - Signatories and date: - Catherine M. O’Regan, President - Jan Paulsson, Judge - Edith Brown Weiss, Judge - Celia Goldman, Registrar - Washington, D.C., October 8, 2013 *The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Judgment (Admissibility): Application of Ms. “GG”, Washington, D.C., October 8, 2013.* ### Introduction ### Introduction ### Case overview - On October 8, 2013, the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, composed for this case pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, of Judge Catherine M. O’Regan, President, and Judges Jan Paulsson and Edith Brown Weiss, met to adjudge the Motion for Summary Dismissal of the Application brought against the International Monetary Fund by Ms. “GG”, a staff member of the Fund. - Applicant represented herself; Respondent was represented by Ms. Diana Benoit, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Erik Plith, Counsel, IMF Legal Department. - Applicant’s claims: - Contest of non-selection for a single B1 position in one Department in 2009 (when no appointment was made) and in 2010 (when an appointment was made). - Contest of Fund’s failure to appoint her to a different B1 position in the same Department in 2011. - Challenge to elements of a revised promotion policy adopted by the Fund in 2011 and its application in her case, asserting the policy is arbitrary and discriminatory. - Allegation of a pattern of harassment, retaliation and discrimination by a senior manager in her Department. - Challenge to decisions during administrative review and Grievance Committee processes as failures of due process that materially impair the evidentiary record before the Tribunal. - The Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal seeking dismissal of all claims on multiple bases. ### Procedural history and timeline - Application filed with the Administrative Tribunal on July 23, 2012; corrected on August 6, 2012 pursuant to Rule VII, para. 6; transmitted to Respondent on August 7, 2012. - Registrar circulated a notice summarizing the issues on August 20, 2012 pursuant to Rule IV, para. (f). - Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal on September 6, 2012 pursuant to Rule XII; transmitted to Applicant on September 7, 2012. - Applicant filed an Objection to the Motion on October 4, 2012 pursuant to Rule XII, para. 5. - Tribunal postponed adjudication because related Grievance proceedings were expected to conclude in early 2013; later advised these would unlikely conclude before fall 2013, so Tribunal scheduled the Motion for determination. - Tribunal decided not to hold oral proceedings on the Motion (neither party had requested oral proceedings). - A Motion for Summary Dismissal suspends the period for answering the Application until the Tribunal determines the Motion; at this stage the case is limited to admissibility. ### Applicant’s request for anonymity and Tribunal ruling - Applicant requested anonymity pursuant to Rule XXII; Respondent opposed. - Rule XXII provides the Tribunal shall grant anonymity “where good cause has been shown for protecting the privacy of an individual.” - Applicant’s stated grounds: to protect her privacy and that of other staff members; case involves sexual harassment, other harassment, retaliation for reporting sexual harassment and other misconduct, and discrimination and bias. - Respondent’s position: core challenge concerns career decisions, including performance ratings and promotions, which the Fund contends are not “matters of personal privacy.” - Tribunal’s precedents indicate anonymity is generally granted in cases involving alleged misconduct or matters of personal privacy such as health or family relations; Tribunal cited multiple prior judgments finding allegations of misconduct warrant anonymity. - Tribunal concluded the Application concerns allegations of misconduct by staff members and a claim of a pattern of harassment, discrimination and retaliation; such conduct, if established, would constitute serious misconduct. - Tribunal granted Applicant’s request that her name not be made public, also protecting identities of other staff members affected by the events under consideration. ### Factual background (Applicant’s version) - The Tribunal notes the Fund had not filed an Answer on the merits at this stage; facts reflect only Applicant’s version. - Applicant is an economist in one of the Fund’s departments. - In 2007 Applicant reported alleged misconduct by her immediate supervisor to the Department Director, including: - sexual harassment of a consultant while on mission, - a biased attempt to prevent conversion of a term staff member to permanent staff, - sexist and racist comments, - inappropriate interference to provide advantages to “selected attractive young women”, - hostility towards Applicant’s staff. - During the 2007 APR round Applicant’s APR rating and MAR (Merit-to-Allocation Ratio) declined “precipitously” despite an asserted increase in responsibilities, performance and outputs. - Applicant alleges retaliation: immediate supervisor originally graded her “outstanding” but Department Director reduced rating to “average”; similar pattern repeated in 2008 and 2009 APR rounds. - In 2009 the Department nominated Applicant for the Review Committee list (the RC list); three members of the Review Committee stated she was “very competitive” for the RC list, but the Department Director attended the Review Committee meeting, gave reasons why Applicant’s name should not be added, and Applicant’s name was not included. - A B-level vacancy in the Department arose around 2009; because Applicant was not on the RC list she was initially ineligible, but after the selection committee decided no eligible candidates had applied, A15 staff not on the RC list were notified and told they could apply. Applicant applied and was interviewed. - Email in the record: interviewing panel unanimously thought Applicant had the best interview, but Department nevertheless chose a different candidate, despite one panel member explicitly voting against that candidate. - Applicant reports being told by the Department Director that she could improve APRs by using “charm, humor, and personal appeal” to him; Applicant considered this response to be sexual harassment. - Applicant met with the Ombudsperson to complain of a pattern of sexual harassment by her Department Director since 2007; she also met with the Human Resources Department (HRD) Director, who did not initiate an investigation of the alleged misconduct. - The 2009 vacancy was filled in 2010 by the candidate preferred by the Department Director. - In 2011 another B1 vacancy was advertised in Applicant’s Department; Applicant did not apply because the Department Director would be the immediate supervisor and Applicant feared further endangering herself. - Applicant was later appointed to a B1 vacancy in a different Department. Applicant asserts she was not aware at acceptance that a change in promotion policy would be announced on July 1, 2011 extending time-in-grade requirement for promotion from B1 to B2 from twelve months to eighteen months. - Applicant asserts her supervisors wrote to HRD requesting she be “grandfathered” under the old rules; no response was received from HRD. ### Channels of administrative review and chronology of grievances - December 8, 2010: Applicant filed a request for administrative review of her 2010 APR rating (“the original challenge”), alleging retaliation, discrimination and a pattern of discrimination, harassment and retaliation over several years. - April 13, 2011: HRD denied the administrative review of the 2010 APR rating. - June 9, 2011: Applicant filed a Grievance with the Fund’s Grievance Committee. - Fund’s witnesses testified at Grievance Committee proceedings on September 15 and 16, 2011. - October 14, 2011: Fund produced an email in response to a discovery request; Applicant contends the email “tainted the vacancy selection” for the 2009 position (see paras. 17-18). - November 14, 2011: Applicant filed a request for administrative review of the non-selection decisions of 2009, 2010 and 2011, the new promotion policy, and the effective date of her promotion (“the new challenges”). - December 13, 2011: HRD denied the new request for administrative review. - December 16, 2011: Applicant took the new challenges to the Grievance Committee. - January 6, 2012: Fund filed a Motion to Dismiss the new challenges; Applicant responded on March 30, 2012. - April 25, 2012: Grievance Committee granted the Motion and dismissed Applicant’s new challenges. - April 30, 2012: Applicant sent an email to the Grievance Committee asserting factual and other errors; Grievance Committee construed it as a Motion for Reconsideration. - May 30, 2012: Grievance Committee denied the Motion for Reconsideration. - June 8, 2012: Fund informed Applicant that the Grievance Committee’s dismissal of the new challenges should be considered final with effect from that date. - The Grievance Committee proceedings regarding the initial challenge to the 2010 APR rating were suspended in late 2011 following a Fund Motion relying on an authorized Ethics Office investigation into conduct of Applicant’s supervisors; parties agreed to resume the Grievance Committee proceedings in mid-2012. Applicant provided testimony and presented two witnesses. At the time of preparation of the Judgment, the Grievance Committee had not yet issued its Recommendation and Report in respect of Applicant’s initial Grievance (to the knowledge of the Tribunal). ### Parties’ principal contentions relating to the Motion for Summary Dismissal - Respondent’s principal arguments in the Motion for Summary Dismissal include: 1. Applicant’s challenges to the three non-selection decisions (in 2009, 2010 and 2011) were not launched within the six-month period stipulated in GAO No. 31, Section 6, and no exceptional circumstances exist to excuse the delay. 2. Applicant did not apply for two of the positions in issue (those filled in 2010 and 2011) and so lacks standing to challenge her non-selection. *Source: Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund judgment materials (Introduction).* ### 3. Applicant’s challenge to the regulatory decision that introduced a change in the ### 3. Applicant’s challenge to the regulatory decision that introduced a change in the promotion policy is untimely under Article VI of the Tribunal’s Statute ### Summary of Tribunal’s procedural conclusions - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund concludes that the Application must be dismissed at this stage for failure to meet the requirements of Article V, Section 1, of the Statute because the Applicant has not “exhausted all available channels of administrative review.” - The dismissal is without prejudice to the Applicant’s right to submit a new application raising the same claims following the conclusion of the Grievance Committee process and Fund Management’s decision, if the Applicant remains dissatisfied with the outcome. - The Tribunal did not consider other grounds for summary dismissal raised by Respondent in its Motion, but dismissal is without prejudice to Respondent’s right to raise those grounds if a new Application is brought. ### Key findings on admissibility and related procedural matters - The Tribunal finds the Applicant’s challenge to the regulatory decision that introduced a change in the promotion policy is untimely under Article VI of the Tribunal’s Statute. - The Applicant’s claim of harm arising from application of the new policy to her is premature. - The Applicant’s claim relating to a pattern of harassment, retaliation and discrimination is under review by the Grievance Committee; therefore the Applicant has not exhausted established channels of administrative review as required by Article V, Section 1, of the Statute of the Tribunal. - Applicant’s claims of due process failures during the administrative review and Grievance Committee processes do not amount to separate “administrative acts” or “individual decisions” that may be reviewed by the Tribunal and should therefore be dismissed at this stage. ### Applicant’s principal arguments (summarized by the Tribunal) - Regarding the 2009 non-selection decision: - Applicant acknowledges challenge was not brought within GAO No. 31, Section 6 time limits but asserts “exceptional circumstances” warrant relaxation of the time limits. - Three grounds claimed to constitute “exceptional circumstances”: - Applicant only became aware on October 14, 2011 of the discriminatory conduct that had adversely affected her in relation to the non-selection decision. - The decision forms part of a pattern of discriminatory conduct by senior managers; Tribunal should account for incidents forming part of a pattern even when individual incidents were not the subject of a timely grievance. - Adoption of the doctrine of “recurrent effects” so that a flawed non-selection decision gives rise to a new cause of action each time an aggrieved staff member receives a paycheck less than she or he would have received but for the flawed decision. - Regarding the 2010 and 2011 non-selection decisions: - Applicant asserts these challenges are timely under GAO No. 31, Section 12 and fall within the time limits in GAO No. 31, Section 6. - Standing to challenge: - For the 2010 decision, Applicant asserts she was originally a candidate and the selection committee knew of her candidacy and qualifications. - For the 2011 decision, Applicant asserts she did not apply because sexual harassment by Applicant’s Department Director “effectively barred” her from applying. - Promotion policy: - Applicant launched a timely challenge both to the decision as it applied to her, and to the regulatory decision itself. - Harassment, retaliation, discrimination claims: - Applicant contends “Harassment, retaliation, and discrimination are part of all of the contested decisions before the Tribunal.” - The Grievance Committee is considering issues of harassment, retaliation and discrimination in relation to the Applicant’s challenge to the 2010 APR decision; Applicant contends all decisions before the Tribunal are “infected by these improper motives and misconduct.” - Applicant asserts the evidentiary record of the Grievance Committee has been developed and placed before the Tribunal and “no further witnesses are expected.” - Complaints about administrative review and Grievance procedures: - Applicant argues procedural rulings (disclosure of witness list, content of witnesses’ testimony) deterred witnesses for Applicant and excluded relevant evidence. - Applicant asserts denial of access to documents on confidentiality grounds impaired her ability to litigate. ### Tribunal jurisprudence and precedent considerations - The Tribunal references Ms. C. O’Connor, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Admissibility of the Application), IMFAT Judgment No. 2010-1 (February 8, 2010), noting that its jurisprudence “strongly favors recourse” to the Grievance Committee because of the detailed legal and factual record produced by that Committee. - The Tribunal notes that in O’Connor the claim before it was “closely allied” to a claim pending before the Grievance Committee and that entertaining one claim before the conclusion of the Grievance proceedings would undermine the twin goals of Article V: “providing opportunities for resolution of the dispute and for building a detailed record in the event of subsequent adjudication.” - The Tribunal finds the claims in the present case are “closely allied” with the claim pending before the Grievance Committee (the 2010 APR rating decision) and that consideration at this stage might undermine the twin goals of Article V. ### Final decision and procedural disposition - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides: - The Application of Ms. “GG” is dismissed in its entirety, without prejudice to Applicant’s right to bring a new Application in due course, and without prejudice to Respondent’s right to raise in response issues of admissibility not disposed of in this Judgment. - Signatories and date: - Catherine M. O’Regan, President - Jan Paulsson, Judge - Edith Brown Weiss, Judge - Celia Goldman, Registrar - Washington, D.C., October 8, 2013 --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2013-3.pdf_