## j2015-1 — Introduction

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [j2015-1 — Introduction](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2015-1.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2015-1.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2015-1.pdf.json)

---

### Case and tribunal composition
- Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund adjudged the Application on March 10 and 11, 2015.
- Tribunal composition pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute: Judge Catherine M. O’Regan, President, and Judges Andrés Rigo Sureda and Francisco Orrego Vicuña.
- Applicant: Ms. Dora Hanna (self-represented).
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund (represented by Ms. Melissa Su Thomas and Ms. Juliet Johnson, Counsel, IMF Legal Department).

### Subject matter and relief sought
- Applicant challenged the Fund’s decision not to extend her two-year limited-term appointment that expired in June 2013.
- Applicant sought:
  - Remuneration she would have received had her limited-term appointment been renewed to allow her to reach mandatory retirement age in July 2015.
  - Legal fees and costs related to the underlying Grievance Committee proceedings and the Tribunal proceedings (Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute).

### Applicant’s appointment history and status
- Appointment history:
  - First limited-term appointment effective April 19, 2010, two-year limited-term appointment as an Advisor at Grade B1 in the Human Resources Department (HRD).
  - Selected in May 2011 for a Deputy Division Chief (DDC) vacancy at Grade A15; accepted a fresh two-year limited-term appointment commencing June 21, 2011.
- It was understood the June 2011 appointment was a “new” limited term and that the Fund’s rule permitting one extension of a limited-term appointment would apply.

### Core factual background and timeline (key dates preserved)
- April 19, 2010: First limited-term appointment effective date.
- May 2011: Selection for DDC vacancy; Selection Memorandum dated May 19, 2011 noted limited-term basis due to department transition and downsizing through FY14.
- June 21, 2011: Commencement of the two-year limited-term appointment as DDC.
- June 2012: Department reorganization; Applicant received an “Outstanding” rating on her FY2012 Annual Performance Review (APR).
- January 24, 2013: Applicant proposed taking additional leave for 6-8 weeks for ongoing health issues.
- February 13, 2013: Applicant emailed the Assistant to the Senior Personnel Manager (ASPM) asking whether her limited term would be extended.
- March–April 2013: Communications among Applicant, Senior Personnel Manager (SPM), and Department leadership regarding possible extension or contractual appointment; SPM and HRD Director explored contractual alternatives.
- April 3, 2013 and April 8, 2013: SPM emails indicated leaning toward a contractual part-time arrangement; Applicant replied April 8, 2013 accepting limiting telecommuting to one day a week with occasional leave as needed.
- June 2013: Expiration of Applicant’s two-year limited-term appointment; Applicant was offered a one-year contractual appointment which she rejected.

### Procedural history and record
- June 30, 2014: Applicant filed Application with the Administrative Tribunal; supplemented July 7, 2014.
- July 18, 2014: Registrar circulated notice summarizing the issues within the Fund.
- August 21, 2014: Respondent filed Answer.
- September 18, 2014: Applicant filed Reply.
- October 24, 2014: Respondent filed Rejoinder.
- November 17, 2014: Tribunal requested additional information; parties responded November 21 and November 28, 2014.
- Tribunal reviewed transcript of Grievance Committee oral hearings (testimony from Applicant, Department Director, Division Chief, SPM, and ASPM).
- Tribunal decided oral proceedings before it were not necessary.

### Parties’ principal contentions
- Applicant:
  - Statements/actions by senior officials reasonably led her to believe her limited-term appointment would be extended up until mandatory retirement age in July 2015.
  - Decision not to extend was based on improper considerations and erroneous understanding of facts.
  - She was not given adequate notice or opportunity to respond.
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (abolition of position) should have applied.
- Respondent:
  - Limited-term appointment gives no legal expectation of continued employment beyond stated term; no express or implied promise made.
  - Non-extension was discretionary, based on legitimate business reasons, not tainted by improper motives.
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.02: no advance notice of separation required at expiration of limited-term appointment.
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 is not applicable.

### Issues identified for Tribunal consideration
- Whether the Fund created an enforceable expectation that the limited-term appointment would be extended (via written internal law, administrative practice, or individualized promise).
- Whether, absent an enforceable expectation, the Fund abused its discretion in declining to extend the appointment.
- Applicable standard of review for a decision not to extend a limited-term appointment.
- Whether the decision was arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.
- Whether the Fund failed to act according to fair and reasonable procedures in concluding employment or communicating the decision.
- Whether GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (abolition of position) applied.

### Administrative developments (March–June 2013) and unit changes
- May 14, 2013: SPM to HRD Director: “I believe [Applicant] will take a contractual assignment rather than continue the current arrangement or quit outright. Worst case, she is almost 63 and would relinquish the A15 in a couple of years.”
- May 31, 2013: SPM informed head of receiving unit decision to move Applicant to contract status rather than extend LT appointment.
- Late May 2013: Applicant returned from leave; SPM informed her the Fund would offer contractual employment; Applicant indicated she did not want to accept a contract.
- June 5, 2013: Applicant asked SPM why decision was reached, stating she had understood she would be extended.
- June 11, 2013: SPM recommended offering “a one-year salaried FT contract as a Senior HR Officer at the equivalent gross pay we are currently paying her a net salary.”
- June 13, 2013: SPM transmitted the offer of a full-time one-year contractual appointment titled “Final Offer Letter.”
- June 17–18, 2013: Applicant met HRD Director; June 18 received formal offer of a one-year contractual appointment to begin June 21 at salary commensurate with her limited-term staff salary with benefits associated with contractual employment.
- June 20, 2013: Applicant did not accept the contractual offer; employment concluded upon expiration of limited-term appointment. Applicant received FY2013 APR on same date, rated “Effective.”
- June 24, 2013: SPM announced relocation of unit Applicant had supervised and assignment of her functions to other employees; DDC position ceased to exist upon her separation.

### Administrative review and Grievance Committee
- July 2, 2013: Applicant filed Grievance challenging non-extension.
- April 24, 2014: Grievance Committee recommended denial of the Grievance.
- May 13, 2014: Applicant notified Fund Management accepted the Grievance Committee’s recommendation.
- June 30, 2014: Applicant filed Application with the Administrative Tribunal.

### Relevant internal law provisions cited
- GAO No. 3 (Employment of Staff Members), Rev. 7 (May 1, 2003):
  - 3.02.2.2: “Limited-term appointments shall be for a period of up to three years and may be extended once up to a cumulative period of five years in that position. Limited-term appointments shall not carry any expectation of conversion to open-ended appointments in the position.”
  - 3.03.1: Fixed-term and limited-term appointments carry benefits of open-ended appointments except specified limitations, including limits on the Fund’s contribution not to exceed 14 percent of the notional gross remuneration.
- GAO No. 16 (Separation of Staff Members), Rev. 6 (February 28, 2008):
  - Section 8 (Expiration of Fixed-Term or Limited-Term Appointment): 8.01–8.03, including that a limited-term staff member shall be separated upon expiration unless appointed in a different capacity; 8.02: “No advance notification of separation at the expiration of a fixed-term or limited-term appointment is required.” 8.03: Resettlement benefits rules for Grades A9 and above.
  - Section 12 (Reduction in Strength, Abolition of Position or Change in Job Requirements): 12.01–12.02, standards for abolition of position, managerial judgment in selection, job search and retraining assistance “over a period of not less than six months,” and preference rules if equally qualified for vacancies.
- GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 4.06: Payments under the Separation Benefits Fund apply to fixed-term or limited-term appointments “provided that under no circumstances will they receive an amount greater than their salary for the remainder of their current appointments.”

### Tribunal’s legal and factual analysis — enforceable expectation
- Sources examined for enforceable expectation:
  - Written internal law of the Fund.
  - Administrative practice of the Fund.
  - An individualized promise to Applicant (managerial statements/actions).
- Findings on written law:
  - Applicant’s letter of appointment explicitly for a two-year term; no reference to extension.
  - GAO No. 3, Rev. 7, Section 3.02.2.2 and GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.02 weigh against any enforceable expectation.
  - Precedent: “A contract for a fixed period of time does not establish job security beyond that term; its very essence is precisely the contrary. Nor can there be a presumption of renewal in favor of the Applicant.” Koçlar v. IBRD, WBAT Decision No. 441 (2010), para. 33.
  - Conclusion: Nothing in written law or appointment letter created an expectation of reappointment.
- Findings on administrative practice:
  - Administrative practice can be binding only where the organization follows it in the conviction it reflects a legal obligation.
  - Applicant’s evidence for a Fund-wide practice of extending limited-term appointments was insufficient.
  - Testimony indicated limited-term appointments “can lapse” and occasional extensions do not establish a binding practice.
  - Conclusion: No binding administrative practice requiring extension.
- Findings on individualized promises/managerial conduct:
  - Applicant relied on informal statements and reassurances, including alleged ASPM confirmation in February 2013.
  - Tribunal weighed Applicant’s admission there was “no guarantee” and her inquiries in late 2012 and February 2013.
  - One-sided aspirations or informal encouragement did not create an enforceable expectation.
  - Conclusion: No individualized promise established.

### Tribunal’s analysis — abuse of discretion and substantive review
- Legal standard: whether the decision was “arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, improperly motivated, based on an error of law or fact, or carried out in violation of fair and reasonable procedures.”
- Abuse-of-discretion review is flexible and tailored to the decision type; assessment considers operational need for the position.
- The decision to allow a limited-term appointment to expire is not primarily a “performance-based decision.”
- Key inquiry: whether there was a continuing need for the appointment.
- Factual findings supporting Respondent’s operational rationale:
  - Department reorganization and “head count problem” made continuation as a permanent DDC unnecessary.
  - Consideration that responsibilities “could be handled on a contractual basis.”
  - Applicant’s teleworking pattern posed supervisory challenges for operational, client-focused functions.
  - Final decision followed several months of discussion and consideration of Applicant’s preference.
- Tribunal conclusion: Decision not to extend was within managerial discretion, tied to legitimate operational and staffing considerations, and not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.

### Tribunal’s analysis — procedural fairness, notice, and GAO No. 16, Section 12
- GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.02 states “No advance notification of separation at the expiration of a . . . limited-term appointment is required.”
- Tribunal noted notice/right-to-be-heard principles apply to fixed-term/open-ended appointments where performance-based separation is at issue, or to abolition-of-position cases.
- Tribunal found these notice principles are not generally pertinent to limited-term appointees who accept appointment expiration by term.
- Specific factual findings on timing and communication:
  - Applicant was on notice as early as mid-March and no later than April 8 that reorganization and contractual options were being considered.
  - Applicant conceded notification was provided three weeks, not three days, before expiration: “It was not until May 30, 2013 that [she] was informed that the decision had been made not to renew the limited-term appointment.”
  - Fund offered a one-year contractual appointment as an alternative.
- On applicability of GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (abolition of position):
  - GAO forms of separation are mutually exclusive; expiration of a limited-term appointment and abolition-of-position are governed by distinct provisions.
  - Section 12 purposes (notice, reassignment assistance, Separation Benefits Fund payments) are inapposite where employment concludes upon expiration of a limited-term appointment.
  - Conclusion: Section 12 is not applicable to the circumstances of expiration of a limited-term appointment.

### Tribunal’s conclusions and decision
- Applicant did not demonstrate the Fund created an enforceable expectation of extension by written law, administrative practice, or individualized promise.
- In absence of such an expectation, the Fund was free to exercise managerial discretion regarding extension.
- Tribunal found no abuse of discretion, no failure to take account of relevant facts, and no violation of fair and reasonable procedures in the record presented.
- Decision: The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously denies the Application of Ms. Hanna.

*The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Decision, March 11, 2015.*

### Introduction ...........................................................................................................

### j2015-1 — Introduction

### Case and tribunal composition
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund adjudged the Application on March 10 and 11, 2015.
- The Tribunal, composed pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, comprised Judge Catherine M. O’Regan, President, and Judges Andrés Rigo Sureda and Francisco Orrego Vicuña.
- Applicant: Ms. Dora Hanna (self-represented). Respondent: International Monetary Fund (represented by Ms. Melissa Su Thomas and Ms. Juliet Johnson, Counsel, IMF Legal Department).

### Subject matter and relief sought
- Applicant challenged the Fund’s decision not to extend her two-year limited-term appointment that expired in June 2013.
- Applicant sought:
  - Remuneration she would have received had her limited-term appointment been renewed to allow her to reach mandatory retirement age in July 2015.
  - Legal fees (relating to the underlying Grievance Committee proceedings) and costs, which the Tribunal may award under Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute if the Application is well-founded in whole or in part.

### Applicant’s appointment history and status
- Appointment history:
  - First limited-term appointment effective April 19, 2010, two-year limited-term appointment as an Advisor at Grade B1 in the Human Resources Department (HRD).
  - Selected in May 2011 for a Deputy Division Chief (DDC) vacancy at Grade A15; accepted a fresh two-year limited-term appointment commencing June 21, 2011.
- It was understood that the June 2011 appointment was a “new” limited term and that the Fund’s rule permitting one extension of a limited-term appointment would apply.

### Core factual background and timeline (key dates preserved)
- April 19, 2010: First limited-term appointment effective date.
- May 2011: Selected for DDC vacancy; Selection Memorandum dated May 19, 2011 noted the position was being filled “. . . on a limited-term basis, as the department is in transition and undergoing a downsizing in the period through FY14 that could involve outsourcing/offshoring some functions, potentially impacting the skills requirements.”
- June 21, 2011: Commencement of the two-year limited-term appointment as DDC.
- June 2012: Department reorganization; Applicant received an “Outstanding” rating on her FY2012 Annual Performance Review (APR).
- January 24, 2013: Applicant proposed taking additional leave for 6-8 weeks to respond to ongoing health issues.
- February 13, 2013: Applicant emailed the Assistant to the Senior Personnel Manager (ASPM) asking whether her limited term would be extended.
- Late February 2013: ASPM relayed orally to Applicant that the Fund was prepared to offer an extension, though the length had not been determined (ASPM later described this as based on misunderstanding of the DC’s endorsement).
- March–April 2013: Series of communications between Applicant, Senior Personnel Manager (SPM), and Department leadership regarding possible extension or a contractual appointment; SPM and HRD Director explored contractual alternatives.
- April 3, 2013 and April 8, 2013: SPM emails summarized discussions and indicated leaning toward a contractual part-time arrangement; Applicant replied April 8, 2013 accepting limiting telecommuting to one day a week with occasional leave as needed.
- June 2013: Expiration of Applicant’s two-year limited-term appointment; Applicant was offered a one-year contractual appointment at the conclusion of the limited-term appointment, which she rejected.

### Procedural history and record
- June 30, 2014: Applicant filed Application with the Administrative Tribunal; supplemented July 7, 2014.
- July 18, 2014: Registrar circulated notice summarizing the issues within the Fund.
- August 21, 2014: Respondent filed its Answer.
- September 18, 2014: Applicant filed Reply.
- October 24, 2014: Respondent filed Rejoinder.
- November 17, 2014: Tribunal requested additional information; parties responded November 21 and November 28, 2014.
- The Tribunal reviewed the transcript of oral hearings held by the Fund’s Grievance Committee, which included testimony from Applicant, the Department Director, the Division Chief (DC), the Senior Personnel Manager (SPM), and the Assistant to the Senior Personnel Manager (ASPM).
- The Tribunal decided that oral proceedings before it were not necessary.

### Parties’ principal contentions (summary)
- Applicant’s principal contentions:
  - Statements and actions by senior officials reasonably led her to believe her limited-term appointment would be extended up until mandatory retirement age in July 2015.
  - The decision not to extend was based on improper considerations and an erroneous understanding of relevant facts.
  - She was not given adequate notice of the decision or opportunity to respond to supervisory concerns.
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (governing abolition of position) should have applied.
- Respondent’s principal contentions:
  - As a holder of a limited-term appointment, Applicant had no legal expectation of continued employment beyond the stated term; no express or implied promise was made.
  - The discretionary decision not to extend was supported by legitimate business reasons and not tainted by improper motives.
  - The Fund’s rules state no advance notice of separation is required at the expiration of a limited-term appointment; Applicant was informed on multiple occasions that extension was not certain.
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 is not applicable to expiration of a limited-term appointment.

### Issues identified for Tribunal consideration
- Whether the Fund created an enforceable expectation that Applicant’s limited-term appointment would be extended (by written internal law, administrative practice, or individualized promise).
- Whether, having concluded no enforceable expectation existed, the Fund abused its discretion in declining to extend the limited-term appointment.
- Applicable standard of review for a decision not to extend a limited-term appointment.
- Whether the decision not to extend was arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.
- Whether the Fund failed to act according to fair and reasonable procedures in concluding Applicant’s employment or in communicating the decision.
- Whether GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (abolition of position) applied in the circumstances.

*Judgment No. 2015-1 of the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund.*

### 27. Applicant was on leave for much of May, and the record reveals no further discussion

### 27. Applicant was on leave for much of May, and the record reveals no further discussion between her and the SPM during that period.

### Timeline and key actions
- May 14, 2013: SPM to HRD Director: “I believe [Applicant] will take a contractual assignment rather than continue the current arrangement or quit outright. Worst case, she is almost 63 and would relinquish the A15 in a couple of years.” (Email from SPM to HRD Director, May 14, 2013.)
- May 31, 2013: SPM informed head of receiving unit that “we decided that we would move her to contract status rather than extend the LT appointment. (I haven’t yet told her this as I want your input on the type of contract we offer – salary vs. daily rate.) . . . This has been dragging for months and the end of her contract is coming quickly, so we need to wrap this up.” (Email from SPM to supervisor of new work unit, May 31, 2013.)
- Late May 2013: Applicant returned from leave; SPM informed her the Fund would offer contractual employment rather than extend the limited-term appointment. SPM testified Applicant at that point indicated she did not want to accept a contract. (Tr. 184-185, 209.)
- June 5, 2013: Applicant asked SPM why decision was reached, stating she had understood she would be extended. (Email from Applicant to SPM, June 5, 2013.)
- June 6, 2013: SPM to HRD Director: Applicant “claims there is a misunderstanding. She doesn’t want to be a consultant and feels that by moving her to that status is essentially firing her with three weeks notice.” SPM queried whether to give a one-year or shorter extension. HRD Director replied: “I’m tempted to give her six months on some understanding that telework is reasonable. Then say we’ll move to contract thereafter.” (Emails, June 6, 2013.)
- June 11, 2013: SPM recommended offering “a one-year salaried FT contract as a Senior HR Officer at the equivalent gross pay we are currently paying her a net salary. She can take it or leave it.” (Email from SPM to HRD Director, June 11, 2013.)
- June 13, 2013: SPM transmitted the offer of a full-time one-year contractual appointment titled “Final Offer Letter.” (Email from SPM to Applicant, June 13, 2013.)
- June 14, 2013: SPM explained rationale: limited term appointments fill duties temporary in duration; department did not see need for a second deputy division chief; contractual employment best suited to continue to use Applicant’s skills on various projects. (Email from SPM to Applicant, June 14, 2013.)
- June 17–18, 2013: Applicant met HRD Director; on June 18 received formal offer of a one-year contractual appointment to begin June 21 at salary commensurate with her limited-term staff salary with benefits associated with contractual employment. (Letter offering contractual appointment, June 18, 2013.)
- June 20, 2013: Applicant did not accept contractual offer; employment concluded upon expiration of limited-term appointment. Applicant received FY2013 APR on same date, rated “Effective.”
- June 24, 2013: SPM announced relocation of unit Applicant had supervised and assignment of her functions to other employees. It is not disputed that the DDC position Applicant had filled ceased to exist upon her separation. (Email from SPM, “Small reorganization in HRD,” June 24, 2013.)

### Administrative review and proceedings
- July 2, 2013: Applicant filed a Grievance with the Fund’s Grievance Committee challenging the decision not to extend her limited-term appointment upon its expiration on June 20, 2013.
- April 24, 2014: Grievance Committee recommended that the Grievance be denied. (Grievance Committee Recommendation and Report, April 24, 2014.)
- May 13, 2014: Applicant notified Fund Management accepted the Grievance Committee’s recommendation. (Letter from Special Advisor to the Managing Director to Applicant, May 13, 2014.)
- June 30, 2014: Applicant filed her Application with the Administrative Tribunal.

### Applicant’s principal contentions (summarized)
- The end date of Applicant’s appointment was not “fixed” at two years; it was subject to a one-time extension up to a cumulative period of five years; absent an explicit statement the appointment would not be extended, Applicant had a reasonable expectation of extension.
- Statements and actions of senior officials of her Department reasonably led Applicant to believe her limited-term appointment would be extended upon expiration.
- The decision not to extend was not motivated by legitimate business reasons but by improper considerations and erroneous factual understanding.
- Applicant was not given adequate notice of the decision nor opportunity to respond to supervisors’ concerns.
- GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (abolition of position) should have been applied.
- The one-year contractual appointment offered was not equivalent in total compensation and other factors to an extension of the limited-term appointment up to mandatory retirement age.
- Relief sought:
  - monetization of remuneration, including benefits she would have received had her limited-term appointment been extended until mandatory retirement age in July 2015; and
  - legal fees and costs incurred before the Grievance Committee and the Administrative Tribunal.

### Respondent’s principal contentions (summarized)
- A limited-term appointment is by definition an appointment of a fixed duration; the Fund has no obligation to extend or renew; limited-term staff have no expectation of continued employment beyond stated term.
- The Fund made no express or implied promise to extend Applicant’s limited-term appointment.
- The decision not to extend was a proper exercise of managerial discretion supported by legitimate business reasons and not tainted by improper motives.
- No failure of due process occurred; no advance notification of separation is required for expiration of a limited-term appointment; Applicant was informed on multiple occasions and well before expiration that extension was not certain.
- GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 is not applicable to expiration of a limited-term appointment.
- Applicant rejected the Fund’s offer of a contractual appointment in lieu of an extension; the rejected contractual appointment would have continued employment at a rate of pay equivalent to her former limited-term salary.

### Relevant internal law provisions cited
- GAO No. 3 (Employment of Staff Members), Rev. 7 (May 1, 2003): sections 3.01, 3.02, and 3.03 setting out types of staff positions and appointments.
  - 3.02.2.2: “Limited-term appointments shall be for a period of up to three years and may be extended once up to a cumulative period of five years in that position. Limited-term appointments shall not carry any expectation of conversion to open-ended appointments in the position.”
  - 3.03.1: Fixed-term and limited-term appointments carry benefits of open-ended appointments except specified limitations, including eligibility rules for the Staff Retirement Plan and limits on the Fund’s contribution not to exceed 14 percent of the notional gross remuneration.
- GAO No. 16 (Separation of Staff Members), Rev. 6 (February 28, 2008):
  - Section 8 (Expiration of Fixed-Term or Limited-Term Appointment): 8.01–8.03, including that a limited-term staff member shall be separated upon expiration unless appointed in a different capacity; 8.02: “No advance notification of separation at the expiration of a fixed-term or limited-term appointment is required.” 8.03: Resettlement benefits rules for Grades A9 and above.
  - Section 12 (Reduction in Strength, Abolition of Position or Change in Job Requirements): 12.01–12.02, including standards for abolition of position, managerial judgment in selection, job search and retraining assistance “over a period of not less than six months,” and preference rules if equally qualified for vacancies.

*Source: Administrative Tribunal record (IMF).*

### 12.03 Notice. A staff member separated under the

### 12.03 Notice. A staff member separated under the

### Separation notice and related benefits (Sections 12.03–12.05)
- Section 12.03: A staff member separated under the provisions of Section 12.01 shall be entitled to 60 calendar days’ notice.
- The Director of Human Resources may extend the notice period up to 120 calendar days to allow the staff member a reasonable time to settle his affairs.
- The Director of Human Resources may excuse a staff member from reporting for duty during part or all of the period of notice and place the staff member on administrative leave with pay during this period.
- Section 12.04: A staff member separated under the provisions of Section 12.01 shall be eligible for resettlement benefits; the minimum period of service required as specified in General Administrative Order No. 8 (Relocation Benefits and Separation Grant) shall not apply in such a case.
- Section 12.05: A staff member separated under the provisions of Section 12.01 shall be granted a separation payment from the Separation Benefits Fund in accordance with the provisions of Section 4.06.

### Issues before the Administrative Tribunal (Application of Ms. Hanna)
- The Tribunal considered three principal issues:
  - (1) Whether the Fund created an enforceable expectation that Applicant’s limited-term appointment would be extended upon its expiration.
  - (2) If not, whether the Fund abused its discretionary authority by deciding not to offer Applicant an extension of her limited-term appointment.
  - (3) Whether the Fund failed to act in accordance with fair and reasonable procedures in relation to the conclusion of Applicant’s employment, including:
    - (a) Whether the Fund failed to act in accordance with fair and reasonable procedures in the manner it took and communicated the decision not to extend the limited-term appointment.
    - (b) Whether the provisions of GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12, governing abolition of position, applied in Applicant’s case.

### Legal and factual framework for enforceable expectation
- Three potential sources of an enforceable expectation were examined:
  - Written internal law of the Fund.
  - Administrative practice of the Fund.
  - An individualized promise to Applicant (statements or actions by managers).
- Relevant written law and policies cited:
  - Applicant’s appointment letter: “As a staff member on limited-term appointment in the International Monetary Fund, you will be subject to present and future administrative regulations for the governance of such staff.” (Second Letter of Appointment, June 17, 2011.)
  - GAO No. 3, Rev. 7, Section 3.02.2.2: “Limited-term appointments shall be for a period of up to three years and may be extended once up to a cumulative period of five years in that position.” Also: “Limited-term appointments shall not carry any expectation of conversion to open-ended appointments in the position.”
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.02: states that no notice need be given of separation of a staff member as a consequence of the expiration of a limited-term appointment.
  - GAO No. 3, Rev. 7, Section 3.02.2.1: limited-term appointments “shall normally be used” in circumstances including reviews of organization/functions, uncertain long-term need, or functions required for a limited period.
  - GAO No. 3, Rev. 7, Section 3.02.1.2 on fixed-term appointments as preliminary to open-ended appointments.
- Distinction noted between “staff” appointments (limited-term, fixed-term, open-ended) and “contractual” appointments, which are governed separately.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings on written law
- The Tribunal found nothing in the Fund’s written law or in Applicant’s letter of appointment (explicitly for a two-year term, making no reference to extension) that created an expectation of reappointment at the conclusion of the limited-term appointment.
- The Tribunal cited precedent: “A contract for a fixed period of time does not establish job security beyond that term; its very essence is precisely the contrary. Nor can there be a presumption of renewal in favor of the Applicant.” Koçlar v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, WBAT Decision No. 441 (2010), para. 33.
- Conclusion: If Applicant were to prevail, the basis for an enforceable expectation must be found in administrative practice or an individualized promise.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings on administrative practice
- The Tribunal reiterated that administrative practice can, in certain circumstances, give rise to legal rights and obligations but only where it is followed by the organization in the conviction that it reflects a legal obligation.
- Applicant’s evidence for a Fund-wide practice of extending limited-term appointments absent notice to the contrary was not sufficient.
- The Tribunal observed that such a practice would run counter to the rationale for limited-term appointments (functions/skills required only for a limited duration).
- Testimony on record (e.g., SPM: “[L]imited term does not require any reason for the termination. It is just -- it can lapse.”) supported the conclusion that any occasional extensions did not reflect a binding legal obligation.
- Conclusion: The evidence did not establish an administrative practice that a limited-term appointment will be extended unless a staff member is informed otherwise.

### Tribunal’s analysis and findings on individualized promises and managerial statements
- Applicant’s principal contention: statements and actions by HRD Director and DC gave the reasonable impression that, if performance was satisfactory, an extension was likely.
- Applicant relied on three categories of managerial conduct:
  - (i) Statements made at the start of the term.
  - (ii) A “consistent pattern of assurances and statements” during the term indicating work was valued.
  - (iii) An alleged confirmation by the ASPM in February 2013 that approvals for the extension had been received.
- Key evidentiary points considered by the Tribunal:
  - Applicant’s appointment letter explicitly stated a two-year term and made no mention of extension.
  - Applicant herself admitted there was “no guarantee” and that she relied on informal assurances: “Well, I had no guarantee. I was -- I was going on things that I was told, the satisfaction with my work, positive things I was getting back, where I thought the department was going as far as the things, so -- but, no, there was nothing in writing. There was nothing said.” (Tr. 367.)
  - Applicant’s inquiries in November and December 2012 and in February 2013 about the status of an extension indicated she did not rely on any firm assurance prior to those times.
  - Applicant’s negotiations with the SPM over possible continued employment evidenced her awareness that no binding promise had been made and that terms remained subject to decision.
- The Tribunal found that one-sided aspirations or informal reassurances did not give rise to an enforceable expectation:
  - “The one-sided aspiration of the Applicant was not sufficient to give rise to an expectation of an extension of her limited-term appointment.”
  - Statements or actions by managers that may have “nurtured [the applicant’s] expectations” did not bind the Fund or create a legal obligation.
- Conclusion: No enforceable expectation of extension of Applicant’s limited-term appointment was created by individualized promises or managerial conduct.

### Interim legal principles and precedents applied
- Administrative practice becomes legally binding only when followed by the organization in the conviction that it reflects a legal obligation.
- Expressions of appreciation, indications that work is valued, or informal assurances do not, without more, create enforceable expectations of renewal for a time-limited appointment.
- A fixed or limited-term appointment letter specifying the term and lacking reference to renewal weighs against an enforceable expectation of extension.

*Source: The Application of Ms. Hanna, IMF Administrative Tribunal judgment.*

### 68. The WBAT has held that an appointee may be entitled to extension “. . . when

### j2015-1 - 68. The WBAT has held that an appointee may be entitled to extension “. . . when

### Promises, enforceable expectations, and relevant WBAT authority
- WBAT precedent: an appointee may be entitled to extension “. . . when circumstances warrant the inference by a staff member that the Bank has indeed made a promise to extend or renew his or her appointment either expressly or by unmistakable implication.” Kopliku v. International Finance Corporation, WBAT Decision No. 299 (2003), para. 10.
- Related WBAT decisions cited: Koçlar (para. 31), Visser v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, WBAT Decision No. 217 (2000), para. 30; Bigman v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, WBAT Decision No. 209 (1999); Degiacomi v. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, WBAT Decision No. 213 (1999), para. 27.
- Tribunal finding on Applicant: no established promise, either expressly or by unmistakable implication, that her limited-term appointment would be extended when it concluded in June 2013.

### Factual findings about the Applicant’s situation (March – June 2013)
- Even if Applicant had been given encouragement up until March 2013 that her limited-term appointment was likely to be extended upon its expiration in June 2013, the Tribunal finds that such encouragement did not constitute a promise made expressly or by unmistakable implication.
- The Fund made clear in March–June 2013 that an extension was “by no means certain.”
- Applicant engaged with the SPM in “on-going discussion of possible options,” including, as early as March, a contractual appointment that was ultimately offered at the conclusion of the limited term in June 2013.
- When Applicant received the formal offer of contractual employment, she indicated a misunderstanding as to her intentions; the SPM and HRD Director revisited the question and concluded that the decision would stand.
- Tribunal conclusion: Applicant has not established an enforceable expectation of extension when the limited-term appointment expired in June 2013.

### Legal standard: abuse of discretion and standard of review
- Tribunal asks whether the decision was “. . . arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, improperly motivated, based on an error of law or fact, or carried out in violation of fair and reasonable procedures.” (Commentary on the Statute, p. 19)
- The abuse of discretion standard is “flexible” and “tailored in a manner appropriate to the nature of the case presented.” Mr. S. Negrete v. IMF, IMFAT Judgment No. 2012-2 (September 11, 2012), para. 75; Ms. “J” v. IMF, IMFAT Judgment No. 2003-1 (September 30, 2003), para. 99.
- Depth of scrutiny may vary according to the nature of the decision, grounds contested, and authority/expertise of the original decision maker. (Ms. “J”, para. 99; Mr. “HH”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2013-4 (October 9, 2013), para. 94.)
- The decision to allow a limited-term appointment to expire without extension is not primarily a “performance-based decision.” (citing Mr. “HH”, Ms. “U”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2006-3 (June 7, 2006), para. 36; Ms. “T”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2006-2 (June 7, 2006), para. 36)
- No equivalent guidelines (to Fixed-Term Monitoring Guidelines) exist for limited-term appointments; the special purpose of limited-term appointments must guide review. GAO No. 3, Rev. 7, Section 3.02.2.1(i)-(iii) describe purposes for limited-term appointments:
  - “long-term need for [the] position[ ] is not certain”;
  - “skills required to fulfill the function are expected to change significantly”;
  - “function is required for a limited period or fewer positions will be required to support a function after initial startup costs.”
- The key inquiry is whether there is a continuing need for the appointment; assessment of operational need falls within the Fund’s discretion, which may not be exercised in an arbitrary or fundamentally unfair manner. See Kopliku, para. 9.

### Application to contested decision: substantive legitimacy and motives
- Applicant’s contention: no clear business case for non-extension; decision “heavily influenced” by concerns related to telecommuting, health, and family conditions; she was not given opportunity to address concerns.
- Respondent’s position: decision supported by legitimate business reasons related to Fund’s operational needs; reorganization in the Department obviated need for a full-time senior staff member to carry out Applicant’s functions.
- Department rationale:
  - Debate among senior officials about placement of Applicant’s small unit following 2012 reorganization.
  - Advantages cited: “synergies” from relocating employees; elimination of a DDC position supervising a small number of subordinates. (Tr. 165)
- HRD Director testimony:
  - “head count problem” and consideration that responsibilities “could be handled on a contractual basis”; head count issues influenced affordability of continuing the position as a permanent position. (Tr. 294-295)
  - Question whether activities needed full-time supervision of a deputy division director. (Tr. 292)
  - “unpredictability” of Applicant’s teleworking schedule posed “a certain difficulty for the department.” (Tr. 294)
- Tribunal conclusions:
  - In a departmental reorganization with scarce budgeted staff positions, allowing a limited-term appointment to expire and separating the staff member was natural and appropriate.
  - Applicant did not challenge classification of her position as limited-term; expiration of a limited-term appointment appropriately occasions re-evaluation of staffing needs.
  - Taking Applicant’s teleworking preference into account when offering contractual employment instead of extension was not arbitrary or fundamentally unfair. The DC described Applicant’s functions as “operational” and “client-focused” and noted off-site work occasioned additional supervisory work. (Tr. 51-57)
  - Overall, the Fund took account of relevant factors relating to efficient staffing and structuring of human resources functions; no evidence of improper motive was established.

### Procedural fairness, notice, and applicable GAO provisions
- Applicant’s procedural claims: decision conveyed three days prior to end of appointment; insufficient notice; no opportunity to refute erroneous allegations; failure to follow performance management procedures; contrary to GAO 16 Section 12.
- Respondent’s procedural position: no failure of due process; no notice of separation required for expiration of limited-term appointment; Applicant was informed on multiple occasions that extension was not certain; GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (abolition of position) not applicable.
- Relevant GAO provisions:
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.01: “A staff member appointed for a limited-term period shall be separated from the Fund upon the expiration of the term or any extension thereof, unless he is appointed in a different capacity to a position in the Fund.”
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.02: “No advance notification of separation at the expiration of a . . . limited-term appointment is required.”
- Tribunal analysis on notice and right to be heard:
  - For fixed-term and open-ended appointees, notice is required where performance criteria must be met to avoid separation so the staff member may rebut evidence (Ms. “C”, IMFAT Judgment No. 1997-1 (August 22, 1997), paras. 41-43; Mr. “HH”, paras. 98-99, 143-150).
  - A staff member separated due to abolition of position should be given reasonable notice and opportunity to contest abolition (Mr. “F”, IMFAT Judgment No. 2005-1 (March 18, 2005), para. 106; Sachdev, paras. 180-187).
  - The Tribunal finds these notice principles are not pertinent to limited-term staff whose appointments are ordinarily set to conclude by their terms; limited-term appointees accept they are on notice the appointment will conclude unless an extension is offered.
  - Management has wide discretion to decide whether to offer an extension of a limited-term appointment.
- Specific findings about timing and communication:
  - The “eleventh hour decision” was the culmination of several months of discussions; final decision shortly before expiration resulted from consideration of Applicant’s preference for extension over contractual employment.
  - Applicant was on notice as early as mid-March and no later than April 8 that the Department was considering reorganization, that a contractual appointment was an option, and that extension was not certain.
  - The Fund acquiesced to Applicant’s request not to make changes while she sought refinancing of her home, contributing to delay.
  - Applicant conceded in her final submission that notification was provided three weeks, not three days, before expiration: “It was not until May 30, 2013 that [she] was informed that the decision had been made not to renew the limited-term appointment.”
  - The Fund offered Applicant a one-year contractual appointment to cushion impact of expiration of the limited term.

### Tribunal conclusions (summary)
- No promise, express or by unmistakable implication, was made by the Fund to extend Applicant’s limited-term appointment when it expired in June 2013.
- The decision not to extend was within the Fund’s discretion, tied to legitimate operational and staffing considerations arising from reorganization, head-count constraints, and teleworking-related supervisory issues.
- The decision was not arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory, improperly motivated, based on an error of law or fact, nor carried out in violation of fair and reasonable procedures on the record presented.
- The procedural protections associated with notice and right to be heard that apply to fixed-term, open-ended, or abolition-of-position cases do not apply in the same way to limited-term appointments, where no advance notification of separation is required under GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.02.

*International Monetary Fund — IMF Administrative Tribunal judgment excerpt (j2015-1).*

### 96. Given the process which preceded the notification to Applicant of the non-renewal of her

### j2015-1 - 96. Given the process which preceded the notification to Applicant of the non-renewal of her

### Whether failure to notify in good time can constitute an abuse of discretion
- The Tribunal did not need to decide whether, despite the clear language of GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 8.02, there may be circumstances in which failure to notify a staff member on a limited-term appointment in good time before the expiry of the term that it will not be extended would constitute an abuse of discretion on the ground that it constitutes a failure to act in accordance with fair and reasonable procedures.
- In this case the Fund provided Applicant with advance notice after an extensive period of consultation with Applicant, and therefore the Fund did not act either unfairly or unreasonably.

### Applicability of GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12 (abolition of position)
- Applicant contended that GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12, governing abolition of position, should have applied because it “refers to staff members, it does not distinguish between appointment types nor does it exclude those who are on a limited term appointment.”
- It is not disputed that Applicant’s position ceased to exist upon expiration of her limited-term appointment and that the functions she performed were assigned to other employees.
- GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12, provides for notice, reassignment assistance, and Separation Benefits Fund (SBF) payments to a staff member separated as a consequence of abolition of the position of which she is the incumbent.
- The Tribunal’s analysis:
  - The GAO must be read as a whole. GAO No. 16, Rev. 6 (February 28, 2008) sets forth “the policies and administrative procedures governing the separation of staff members from the Fund.” (Section 1.01.)
  - Section 3.01 lists mutually exclusive forms of separation, including (d) expiration of fixed-term appointment (Section 8) and (h) separation upon abolition of the staff member’s position, change in job requirements, or when a reduction in strength is required (Section 12). The Tribunal viewed these forms as mutually exclusive and each governed by its own substantive and procedural requirements.
  - Persons separating as a consequence of the expiration of a limited-term appointment do not benefit from the same entitlements as those separating as a consequence of abolition of position.
  - GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 4.06 (Payments under the Separation Benefits Fund) applies to staff serving on fixed-term or limited-term appointments “provided that under no circumstances will they receive an amount greater than their salary for the remainder of their current appointments.” (Emphasis in original.)
  - The purpose of the reassignment assistance provision of Section 12 is to avoid separation of a staff member holding an expectation of continued employment; reassignment assistance is inapposite where employment concludes upon expiration of a limited-term appointment.
  - A premise of filling a position on a limited-term basis is that there will not be an ongoing need for the position. See GAO No. 3, Rev. 7, Section 3.02.2.1.

### Tribunal’s legal conclusion on procedural fairness and entitlements
- The purposes of GAO No. 16, Rev. 6, Section 12, are not applicable to separation consequent to the expiration of a limited-term appointment.
- The Tribunal found no ground in the law of the Fund or the facts in the record to conclude that the Fund failed to act in accordance with fair and reasonable procedures when Applicant’s employment concluded upon expiration of her limited-term appointment.

### Conclusions of the Tribunal and decision
- Applicant contested the decision not to extend her two-year limited-term appointment when it expired by its terms in June 2013.
- The Tribunal found that Applicant did not show that the Fund created, through written law, administrative practice, or any explicit or implicit promise, an enforceable expectation that the appointment would be extended at its expiration.
- Having not constrained its discretionary authority by creating such an expectation, the Fund was free—within lawful constraints—to decide whether or not to extend Applicant’s appointment.
- The Tribunal concluded Applicant did not demonstrate that the contested decision:
  - failed to take account of relevant facts,
  - fell short of fair and reasonable procedures, or
  - was otherwise tainted so as to make it arbitrary or fundamentally unfair.
- Decision:
  - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that the Application of Ms. Hanna is denied.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2015-1.pdf_