## Mr. “QQ” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-2 (October 25, 2022) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [Mr. “QQ” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-2 (October 25, 2022)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-2-summary.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-2-summary.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-2-summary.pdf.json) --- ### Case background - Applicant challenged his starting grade and a later non-promotion decision. - Applicant alleged a “pattern” of discrimination on the basis of his nationality and alleged bias in the Grievance Committee proceedings. - Tribunal considered claims under the Fund’s Discrimination Policy and applicable dispute resolution procedures. ### Timeliness and exhaustion — challenge to starting grade - Tribunal’s threshold holding: - The six-month window to challenge a starting grade began when Applicant received and accepted the Fund’s offer letter specifying his starting grade (Para. 50). - Applicant did not challenge his starting grade within the Fund’s formal dispute resolution system until several years later. - The challenge to the starting grade was held inadmissible because Applicant failed to raise a timely claim and to exhaust administrative remedies. - Tribunal reasoning and principles: - Timely exhaustion of administrative remedies “provides an early opportunity to the institution to rectify possible errors – when memories are fresh, documents are likely to be in hand, and disputed decisions are more amenable to adjustment.” (Para. 50, internal citations omitted.) - No exceptional circumstances justified Applicant’s multi-year delay. - Applicant’s belief that administrative review would be “meaningless” did not excuse the delay. - Applicant’s allegation that the Fund concealed the use of partial credit was rejected; “Applicant did not need to know the precise methodology that HRD used to calculate his starting grade in order to be able to challenge the grade.” (Para. 53.) - Tribunal observed that “[i]f he had wished to know how the Fund reached its decision, he could have asked earlier.” (Para. 53.) - Observational recommendation by the Tribunal: - The Tribunal noted generally that Fund Management might wish to consider more clearly informing staff at the time of hiring if a decision has been made to give less than full credit for prior work experience. ### Mediation, tolling, and notice issues - Applicant argued mediation confidentiality prevented subsequent administrative review. - Tribunal: “Nothing in the Fund’s mediation rules prevents an applicant from pursuing administrative review of the same matter that has been submitted unsuccessfully to mediation, so long as the time period for requesting review has not expired and the parties’ statements and positions in the mediation are not disclosed without consent.” (Para. 56.) - Fund argued a notice requirement to suspend the review time period during mediation. - Tribunal noted an apparent contradiction between tolling provisions in the Staff Handbook and the Mediation Rules but found it unnecessary to resolve notice-question because the administrative review window for the starting grade had expired well before mediation. ### Non-promotion decision — exhaustion and merits - Tribunal found Applicant exhausted administrative channels for the non-promotion claim before filing with the Tribunal. - Tribunal concluded Applicant failed to substantiate the non-promotion claim for three principal reasons: 1. No proven discrimination based on nationality - Tribunal applied “heightened scrutiny to allegations of discrimination on the basis of nationality.” (Paras. 65-66.) - Tribunal found Applicant’s statistical arguments and alleged lack of career progression insufficient to establish a “causal link” between nationality and the non-promotion decision. - Record contained credible evidence from multiple witnesses in Grievance Committee proceedings that the non-promotion decision was based on merit, without regard to nationality. 2. Allegation of unfair marginalization on a country desk assignment unproven - Tribunal reviewed Grievance Committee testimony from promotion roundtable participants who stated the non-promotion decision was close and based on a comparative assessment of all candidates, not on any perceived deficiency in the breadth of Applicant’s assignments. 3. Procedural fairness upheld - Tribunal found the Fund had followed fair and reasonable procedures in deciding promotions. - Tribunal “emphasize[d] the importance of fair and reasonable promotion procedures, set out in a written policy accessible to all staff.” (Para. 74.) - Record reflected consistent testimony that the decision rested on a considered comparative assessment of all candidates in accordance with the Fund’s Promotion Policy. ### “Pattern” of discrimination claim - Admissibility and timing: - Tribunal found the pattern claim admissible because Applicant timely challenged the non-promotion decision as “the culminating act in the alleged pattern.” (Para. 82.) - Merits: - Considering the totality of the evidence, Tribunal concluded Applicant had not identified events that singly or together demonstrated unfair treatment based on his nationality. - Tribunal observed (Para. 87) that Applicant’s belief that he was subject to discrimination from 2013-2016 because there were no staff members of his nationality in Department management and that he had “no channel to voice any complaints of unfair treatment” was unsupported. - Tribunal stated: “The notion that staff must rely on shared nationality for professional advancement and protection from discrimination would contradict the core principles expressed in the Discrimination Policy.” (Para. 87.) ### Grievance Committee proceedings — bias allegation - Tribunal reviewed the record and dismissed Applicant’s contention that Grievance Committee proceedings were tainted by bias or other impropriety so as materially to impair the evidentiary record. - Tribunal reiterated procedural standards: - “[A]ll steps in the Fund’s dispute resolution system must be fair and free of discrimination. Sensitivity to cultural and linguistic diversity is essential to the Fund’s effectiveness as a public international organization with a mandate to ‘pay due regard to the importance of recruiting personnel on as wide a geographical basis as possible.’” (Para. 92.) ### Conclusion and Tribunal’s closing statements - Having found Applicant failed to substantiate his various claims, Tribunal denied the Application of Mr. “QQ”. - Tribunal’s concluding observations (Para. 93): - “The Tribunal regards charges of discrimination with the utmost seriousness. Invidious discrimination on the basis of nationality has no place in an international organization.” - “There can be professional disagreements concerning standard managerial decisions regarding grading exercises, work assignments, and promotions. These do not by themselves give rise to sustainable claims of discrimination.” --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2022-2-summary.pdf_