## Registry’s Summary: Mr. “SS”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2021-3 (December 27, 2021) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [Registry’s Summary: Mr. “SS”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2021-3 (December 27, 2021)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2021-3-summary.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2021-3-summary.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2021-3-summary.pdf.json) --- ### Background - Applicant, a staff member, alleged: - denial of reasonable accommodations for a hearing disability and discrimination based on disability; - retaliation for seeking accommodations, alleging discrimination, and raising ethics complaints through various channels; - breach of terms of a partial mediation agreement; and - a pattern of unfair treatment. - The case presented the first instance for the Tribunal to interpret the Fund’s written policy on disability accommodations as set out in the Staff Handbook, Chapter 11.01, Section 5.3. ### Procedural issues and Tribunal rulings - Notice circulation under Rule IV(f): - The Registrar circulated a notice summarizing issues raised in the Application pursuant to Rule IV(f). - Another staff member requested the Registrar convey their name and email address to Applicant; the Tribunal determined the Registrar should not accede to that request, considering the Registrar’s obligations of confidentiality and neutrality. - Anonymity: - The Fund requested anonymity for “all concerned in this case” citing three categories the Tribunal had previously associated with anonymity: challenge to a performance assessment, allegations of staff misconduct, and health issues. - Applicant objected to anonymity for himself. - Tribunal reasoning: even if Applicant declines protection of his own health information, the Fund has valid interests in protecting the privacy of staff accused of misconduct and in preserving the integrity of performance assessment processes (Para. 22). Because identification of Applicant would prevent protecting other individuals’ identities and candid APR feedback, the Tribunal concluded there was good cause to protect the identity of all concerned, including Applicant. - Confidentiality of mediation proceedings and document production: - Applicant sought production of an email he asserted would show his supervisor’s awareness of his mediation request before alleged retaliatory actions. - The Fund argued the email was a protected communication between the supervisor and the Mediator under the Mediation Rules. - The Tribunal reviewed the email in camera and stated the general importance of protecting mediation confidentiality, particularly substantive bilateral communications between a party and the Mediator (Para. 26). - The Tribunal noted exceptions in the Mediation Rules and that both parties had acquiesced to disclosure of the fact of the mediation, so it admitted the email in redacted form solely to establish timing of the supervisor’s awareness of Applicant’s mediation request. ### Legal standards applied - Heightened scrutiny for disability discrimination: - The Tribunal stated that the Fund’s antidiscrimination policies place discrimination based on disability on a par with religious bias and other serious types of discrimination, and that discrimination based on disability violates both the Fund’s internal law and universally accepted human rights principles. Accordingly, the Tribunal applied heightened scrutiny to allegations of disability discrimination and failures to provide reasonable accommodations (Para. 97). - Staff Handbook, Chapter 11.01, Section 5.3 (disability accommodations): - Under Section 5.3, the Fund was obliged to provide reasonable accommodations, at Applicant’s request, to enable him to perform “the essential functions” of his job. - The Fund had discretion to decide between “one or more reasonable options” where available. - The Fund was not obliged to provide accommodations that would cause “undue hardship for the Fund (i.e., significant and disproportionate expense or difficulty)” (Para. 100). - Retaliation Policy scope: - The Tribunal rejected the Fund’s argument that retaliation protection applies only to participation in formal ethics investigations or grievance proceedings, finding instead that the Retaliation Policy protects not only complainants and witnesses in formal proceedings but also “anyone” who uses “any of” the channels available for speaking up, reporting suspected misconduct, raising ethical concerns, and participating in formal and informal dispute resolution (Para. 170). ### Findings on discrimination and reasonable accommodations - Duty to accommodate: - Applying heightened scrutiny, the Tribunal found no merit to Applicant’s discrimination claims. - The Tribunal concluded the Fund fully satisfied its duty to provide reasonable accommodations for Applicant’s disability, noting extensive engagement between Applicant and the Fund and implementation of many accommodations. - Social events accommodations: - The Tribunal held that a fair approach is to facilitate disabled employees’ participation in social events proportionate to the significance of such events for building work effectiveness in a team environment. The Fund met that standard (Para. 124). - Interactive process: - The Tribunal emphasized a mutually interactive process that is largely employee-initiated and employee-led. Section 5.3 specifies the Fund’s duty to provide reasonable accommodations arises “at the[] request” of the employee. The Tribunal found ample evidence of the Fund’s good-faith engagement in an appropriate interactive process and rejected a requirement that the Fund be the more “proactive” party (Para. 131). - Other discrimination allegations: - Applicant failed to meet his burden of proof to show discrimination regarding his main work project, his FY2018 APR, or his office reassignment and safety arrangements. ### Findings on retaliation - Burden of proof for each alleged retaliatory instance: - For each alleged retaliatory action, Applicant had to show (i) he engaged in a protected activity, (ii) he suffered an adverse action, and (iii) a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. - The Tribunal found Applicant failed to meet his burden in each instance. - Example: The Tribunal found Applicant’s hostile behavior, rather than any protected activities, led to several actions he viewed as retaliatory. - The Tribunal further held that requesting accommodations alone does not amount to “raising ethical concerns” or other protected activity under the Retaliation Policy, although complaints regarding such requests and the Fund’s alleged failure to respond may be protected and were addressed as alleged discrimination. ### Breach of partial mediation agreement - The Tribunal has previously stressed enforcing negotiated agreements between staff and the Fund. - Applicant alleged breach of a partial mediation agreement regarding accommodations and project management. - The Tribunal found Applicant failed to show the Fund had violated any provision of the plain text of the partial mediation agreement. ### Unfair treatment and procedural claims - Applicant alleged a pattern of stereotyping, substantive unfair treatment, and procedural unfairness in Administrative Review and Grievance Committee proceedings. - The Tribunal found no merit to these claims and therefore found no compensable harm. ### Outcome - The Application of Mr. “SS” was denied. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2021-3-summary.pdf_