## REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: “TT”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-1 (June 30, 2022)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: “TT”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-1 (June 30, 2022)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Case background
- Applicant challenged the Fund’s decision to place him on administrative leave with pay and to deny him access to his work unit and systems.
- The Tribunal observed the Fund initially did not advise Applicant of the authority in the Fund’s internal law for the decision.

### Legal framework and applicability of Staff Handbook provisions
- The Fund invoked Staff Handbook, Ch. 5.01, Section 5.6 (Administrative Leave With Pay for Special and Unusual Situations) as the basis for the decision.
- Applicant contended Section 5.3 (Administrative Leave Pending Investigation of Misconduct) should have applied.
- The Tribunal found Section 5.3 is integrally tied to the misconduct process and that no misconduct investigation had been pursued; therefore, it was within the Fund’s authority to base the administrative-leave-with-pay decision on Section 5.6.

### Due process requirements and Tribunal findings on exercise of discretion
- The Tribunal concluded Section 5.6 “may not be deployed to evade the procedural requirements that protect both the staff member and the institution from erroneous decision making . . . . Fair and reasonable procedures must govern” whether or not formal disciplinary machinery is activated.
- The Tribunal held that when Section 5.6 is used on the basis that “in the view of the Director of HRD, the continuing presence of a staff member at work may not be in the interest of the Fund,” and that decision is grounded in alleged conduct that might constitute misconduct and/or in the view that the staff member’s presence poses a risk of future harm, then procedural protections must be afforded akin to those required under Section 5.3.
- The Tribunal specified general principles of international administrative law require:
  - An impartial assessment;
  - Notice of the proposed action; and
  - An opportunity for the staff member to be heard on the matters forming the basis for the decision.
- The Tribunal identified fundamental failures of due process in Applicant’s case:
  - The Fund’s omission to cite any basis in its internal law for the impugned decision.
  - The Fund’s failure to take an impartial decision following notice and an opportunity for Applicant to be heard that his continued presence at work may not be in the interest of the Fund.
  - The Fund’s failure to meet the standard that all reasonable efforts be taken to mitigate the inherent stigma and potential humiliation associated with placing a staff member on administrative leave with pay.
- Conclusion: The Fund exceeded the margin of its discretionary authority under Section 5.6 and the administrative-leave-with-pay decision was rescinded.

### Retaliation, whistleblowing, and age discrimination claims
- On retaliation:
  - The Tribunal acknowledged a “pattern of incidents could give rise to a finding of retaliation under the Fund’s Retaliation Policy,” but incidents must involve protected activities within the scope of that policy and the ultimate adverse action must be clearly attributable to the pattern of protected activity.
  - The Tribunal found the evidentiary record opaque as to the respective responsibilities of Applicant and the Head of Office for their discord, and consequently insufficient evidence to conclude actionable retaliation.
- On whistleblowing:
  - The Tribunal observed the Fund’s written retaliation policy “does not reference ‘whistleblowing’ per se or expressly provide protection of staff members who call into question colleagues’ views as to how Fund policies shall be applied or, indeed, call into question the policies themselves.”
  - The Tribunal noted the Fund’s internal law “broadly protects all staff who ‘speak up’ or ‘raise ethical concerns,’ either formally or informally, with managers or through other workplace conflict resolution channels,” and emphasized protection of rigorous discussion under international administrative law.
- On age discrimination:
  - The Tribunal decided Applicant failed to substantiate the age discrimination claim.

### Grievance Committee role and counsel conduct
- The Tribunal declined to adjudicate Applicant’s secondary claim that the Grievance Committee proceedings constituted a separate injury, reaffirming it does not sit as an appellate body in relation to the Grievance Committee and emphasizing coherence and complementarity in the Fund’s dispute resolution system.
- On counsel civility:
  - The Tribunal reminded that counsel are expected to conduct themselves to facilitate a fair and reasoned adjudicatory process, follow the canon of candor to the Tribunal regarding facts and law, and avoid misleading argumentation.
  - The Tribunal rejected the Fund’s request to deny legal fees on the basis of alleged incivility by Applicant’s counsel.

### Remedies, compensation, and costs
- The Tribunal rescinded the administrative-leave-with-pay decision and prescribed measures required to correct the effects of that decision.
- The Tribunal awarded monetary compensation for intangible injury, setting the sum at $30,000 after considering both aggravating and mitigating factors.
- Pursuant to Article XIV(4) of the Statute, the Tribunal ordered the Fund to pay Applicant legal fees and costs in the sum of $38,421.97, which was approximately 80 percent of the total fees and costs requested.
  - The Tribunal applied a principle of proportionality, awarding full legal fees and costs associated with pleadings that focused on the successful challenge to the administrative-leave-with-pay decision.
  - The Tribunal affirmed access to justice in rejecting the Fund’s request to deny legal fees based on alleged incivility.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-1-summary.pdf_