## j2023-2

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [j2023-2](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-2.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-2.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-2.pdf.json)

---

### Tribunal composition and parties
- Tribunal composed pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute of:
  - Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President;
  - Judge Andrew K.C. Nyirenda;
  - Judge Maria Vicien Milburn.
- Applicant: Ms. Christiane Roehler, staff member of the Fund, represented by Mr. Ryan Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C.
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund, represented by Ms. Juliet Johnson (Senior Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department), Mr. James Newland, Jr., and Ms. Kiran Seldon (Seyfarth Shaw LLP).

### Nature of the challenge and relief sought
- Nature of challenge:
  - Applicant contests HRD’s decision that, as a Grade A14 fungible macroeconomist, she was not eligible to be considered for an advertised Grade B1-B3 Specialized Career Stream (“SCS”) vacancy open to economists and non-economist staff because MDC participation is required for B1 consideration and MDC attendance is limited to staff in titled managerial roles (A15 for economists; A14 for SCS).
  - MDC = Management Development Center, an intensive three-day exercise assessing managerial competencies and providing developmental feedback.
- Relief sought by Applicant:
  - Order directing the Fund to make Applicant eligible for participation in the MDC.
  - Order directing the Fund to ensure Applicant will be considered favorably for at least three A15 or B-level vacancies for which Applicant is deemed qualified.
  - Monetary compensation for intangible injuries suffered after being declared ineligible.
  - Costs including legal fees (Article XIV, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute).
  - “[A]ny other relief that the Tribunal deems just and proper.”

### Respondent’s position
- Core contentions:
  - B-level promotion process design, including MDC eligibility criteria, reflects proper managerial discretion and is a reasonable exercise of policy-making authority.
  - Rules are reasonable, fair, and “clearly conveyed to staff through numerous channels.”
  - Applicant’s requested relief, e.g., favorable consideration for several vacancies, is “unduly intrusive of the Fund’s managerial authority and judgment.”
- Factual points advanced:
  - MDC followed a 1992 staff survey, extensive Fund-wide consultations, and a year-long pilot program.
  - The list of titled managerial roles eligible for MDC “has remained the same since 1994.”
  - B-level criteria and MDC eligibility are published in Staff Bulletin No. 03/27 and on HR Web.

### Procedural record and document production
- Neither party requested oral proceedings; Tribunal found written record sufficient and advised parties the record was complete on October 28, 2022.
- Applicant requested production of seven types of documents (including MDC rules, career guidance, B-level promotions, Unit Head selection process); Respondent identified or attached responsive documents.
- Respondent stated no responsive documents existed for two requests concerning exceptions because:
  - “consistent with the Fund’s eligibility criteria for advancement to B-level roles, no Grade A14 economist has been directly promoted to a B-level SCS position”; and
  - “no . . . accommodations or adjustments were made” to enable completion of the MDC or meeting other minimum requirements for the Unit Head position.
- Applicant did not identify outstanding document requests in her Reply; Tribunal considered no document requests outstanding.

### Standards of review and legal framework
- Jurisdiction: Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute permits judging legality of “any individual or regulatory decision taken in the administration of the staff of the Fund.” “Regulatory decision” includes rules concerning terms and conditions of staff employment.
- Scope of review: “Quite narrow”; respect for Fund’s legislative and executive organs to formulate employment policies.
- Applicable precedent and test:
  - de Merode (WBAT Decision No. 1 (1981), para. 47) factors include whether changes are:
    - adopted for reasons pertinent to the organization’s functioning and to ensure staff possess “the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence”;
    - based on proper consideration of relevant facts;
    - reasonably related to intended objective;
    - made in good faith and without improper motives;
    - non-discriminatory in an unjustifiable manner;
    - adopted in a manner seeking to avoid excessive and unnecessary harm with careful study.
  - For equality-of-treatment discrimination claims, the Tribunal applies a “rational nexus” test (Mr. “R”): (1) proffered reasons must be supported by evidence; and (2) there must be a “rational nexus between the classification of persons subject to the differential treatment and the objective of the classification.”
  - The “rational nexus” standard “does not require that there be a perfect fit between the objectives of the policy and the classification scheme” and may rest upon generalizations.

### Governing materials on B-level promotion and MDC eligibility
- Staff Bulletin No. 03/27, “Senior Promotions and Appointments in the Fund” (December 19, 2003) — Table 2 selection criteria for Grade B1 SCS positions:
  - (i) “Meet specific educational and experience requirements for the position as advertised”;
  - (ii) “Proven technical skills”;
  - (iii) “Proven managerial skills (MDC a requirement).”
- MDC intranet “Management Development Center” page — “Who Should Attend?”:
  - “MDC attendance is by department nomination and strictly limited to staff in titled managerial roles at Grade A15 (Economist) and A14 (SCS). Examples of A15/A14 titled managerial roles include Deputy Division Chiefs, Assistant to Directors, Section Chiefs, and Unit Chiefs.”
  - HRD “strongly encourages departments to nominate only those staff members who have had at least six months of formal, direct managerial experience” and “also suggests that departments nominate to the MDC only those staff members whom the department would consider nominating to the Review Committee within approximately 18 months after MDC attendance.”

### Tribunal’s response to Applicant’s six main contentions (overview)
- Central legal question: whether the Fund’s Grade B1 SCS promotion criteria and MDC eligibility requirements constitute an abuse of managerial discretion as applied to a Grade A14 economist seeking Grade B1 SCS promotion.
- Tribunal addresses six arguments raised by Applicant and applies de Merode and “rational nexus” analysis to each.

### (1) Differentiation between Grade A14 economists and Grade A14 SCS staff
- Applicant’s claim: rules “arbitrarily differentiate between Grade A14 economists and Grade A14 SCS staff” because titled managerial roles permit MDC eligibility for A14 SCS but economists must reach A15.
- Tribunal findings:
  - Limiting MDC participation to titled managers was a reasonable exercise of managerial discretion after extensive consultation and testing (1992 survey; MDC introduced in 1994; pilot).
  - Participation in MDC is a practical step to identify staff ready for higher management.
  - No evidence of discrimination violating equality of treatment; different treatment of groups that are not similarly situated does not amount to discrimination.

### (2) Differentiation between Grade A14 specialized economists and Grade A15 fungible economists
- Applicant’s claim: requirement of a titled managerial position arbitrarily differentiates between staff with similar managerial experience (e.g., A14 mission chiefs) and A15 Deputy Division Chiefs.
- Tribunal findings:
  - Applicant did not demonstrate unfair discrimination.
  - Fund’s “Leadership Development Framework” defines managerial leadership for A15 Deputy Division Chiefs to include “Mission/Project Leadership,” “People Management,” “Operational Leadership,” “Intellectual and Strategic Leadership,” and “Advocacy and External Relationships.”
  - Granting MDC eligibility to A15 Deputy Division Chiefs, but not A14 economists, has a “rational nexus” to the objective of assessing and developing managerial skills for B-level progression.

### (3) Alleged disregard of substantial managerial experience in favor of titled positions
- Applicant’s claim: titled manager requirement “arbitrarily disregards the substantial actual managerial experience of candidates like [Applicant]” and favors an internally defined list of titled positions.
- Tribunal findings:
  - Restricting MDC participation to titled managers was a reasonable administrative decision to focus resources on those recognized as holding substantial managerial responsibilities.
  - Managerial experience accrued outside the Fund does not invalidate reliance on internal staff categories and titles.
  - Tribunal notes examples of titled roles appear across materials (Deputy Division Chiefs, Assistant to Directors, Section Chiefs, Unit Chiefs, Deputy Unit Chief, A15 Resident Representatives) but suggests Management “may wish to consider how to communicate a more consistent and comprehensive list of titled managerial positions.” The Tribunal found no arbitrariness constituting an abuse of discretion.

### (4) Alleged penalty for staff who move among career tracks
- Applicant’s claim: rules “unfairly penalize staff members who have moved among career tracks.”
- Tribunal findings:
  - Fund encourages A11-A14 fungible macroeconomists to pursue diverse experiences; such experience does not guarantee advancement to A15 or B1 consideration.
  - Applicant and another A14 were ineligible for the Unit Head role due to not meeting MDC participation prerequisite.
  - No basis to conclude rules unfairly penalize staff with diverse work experiences across career streams.

### (5) Departmental nomination requirement for MDC nominations
- Applicant’s claim: requiring nomination by staff member’s current department “arbitrarily disadvantage[s]” versatile candidates seeking cross-stream moves because current departments may lack incentive to nominate staff who intend to leave.
- Respondent’s defense:
  - Current departments are “in the best position to provide up-to-date evaluations of staff member competency and readiness for B-level advancement.”
  - Process is not linked to specific vacancies; individualized approach would create inefficiency and risk testimonial overload and arbitrariness.
- Tribunal findings:
  - Applicant presented no evidence that the nominating system harms cross-stream candidates or prevents hiring departments from finding diverse candidates.
  - Shortlist for the Unit Head included economists with diverse experience who had been nominated to and completed the MDC.
  - No indication hiring unit was dissatisfied with candidates or would have preferred to circumvent MDC rules.
  - Tribunal finds the nominating system based on appropriate consideration of facts and reasonably related to objective of focusing MDC resources on staff likely candidates for B-level advancement.
  - Applicant did not show abuse of discretion in the nominating rule.

### Transparency and alleged opacity of promotion rules
- Applicant’s claim: Fund failed to “clearly convey” B-level promotion rules, contributing to an opaque promotion system.
- Tribunal findings:
  - Staff Bulletin No. 03/27 and the MDC intranet page set out MDC requirement and nomination process with examples of titled roles.
  - Applicant’s March 2020 correspondence shows awareness that the Unit Head position required MDC participation and that “being in a titled position is a pre-requisite for even being nominated to the MDC,” which for economists “imposes effectively a requirement of having reached the A15 grade.”
  - Tribunal finds no “fatal lack of transparency” and that Fund sufficiently conveyed that titled managerial roles (starting at A15 for economists) are prerequisite to MDC nomination by current departments and thereafter for B1 consideration.
  - Tribunal notes Fund Management may consider clarifying the full roster of titled managerial roles eligible for MDC participation.

### Tribunal’s overall conclusions and decision
- Regulatory challenge conclusions:
  - Applicant did not show arbitrariness, discrimination, or other abuse of regulatory discretion in MDC eligibility rules or B1 promotional requirements.
  - Challenged rules were based on appropriate consultation and consideration of relevant facts and were rationally related to the Fund’s goals of strengthening managerial assessment and promoting B-level readiness among proven managers.
- Individual challenge conclusions:
  - HRD’s determination that Applicant was ineligible for the Unit Head position was consistent with the MDC requirements as written and Staff Bulletin No. 03/27’s three B1 selection criteria ((i) specific educational and experience requirements; (ii) proven technical skills; (iii) proven managerial skills (MDC a requirement)).
  - HRD properly screened applications and did not forward Applicant’s application because MDC participation was a prerequisite.
- Decision:
  - The Administrative Tribunal unanimously decides: The Application of Ms. Roehler is denied.
  - Washington, D.C., January 31, 2023.

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund, Decision, January 31, 2023.*

### INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................

### INTRODUCTION

### Tribunal composition and parties
- The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (“Tribunal”) was composed for this case, pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, of Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President, and Judges Andrew K.C. Nyirenda and Maria Vicien Milburn.
- Applicant: Ms. Christiane Roehler (“Applicant”), a staff member of the Fund, represented by Mr. Ryan Griffin, James & Hoffman, P.C.
- Respondent: International Monetary Fund (“Respondent” or “Fund”), represented by Ms. Juliet Johnson, Senior Counsel in the Administrative Law Unit of the IMF Legal Department, and Mr. James Newland, Jr. and Ms. Kiran Seldon, Seyfarth Shaw LLP.

### Nature of the challenge
- Applicant contests the decision of the Human Resources Department (“HRD”) that, as a Grade A14 fungible macroeconomist, she was not eligible to be considered for an advertised vacancy, open to both economist and non-economist staff, at Grade B1-B3 in a Specialized Career Stream (“SCS”).
- The challenged Fund rules require candidates for Grade B1 positions to have participated in the Fund’s Management Development Center (“MDC”), an intensive three-day exercise designed to assess participants’ managerial competencies and provide detailed developmental feedback.
- MDC participation is limited to staff who hold “titled” managerial positions and are nominated by their current departments. At the Fund, titled managerial positions begin at A15 for economists and A14 for SCS staff.
- Applicant contends that the MDC requirement and eligibility rules, as applied in the context of a Grade A14 economist seeking a Grade B1 SCS position open to both economist and SCS staff, represent an abuse of the Fund’s regulatory discretion.

### Relief sought by Applicant
- An order directing the Fund to make Applicant eligible for participation in the MDC.
- An order directing the Fund to ensure that Applicant will be considered favorably for at least three A15 or B-level vacancies in which Applicant is interested and for which Applicant is deemed qualified by the hiring department.
- Monetary compensation for intangible injuries suffered by Applicant after being unfairly declared ineligible for the position to which Applicant applied.
- Costs including legal fees (which the Tribunal may award, in accordance with Article XIV, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, if it concludes that the Application is well-founded in whole or in part).
- “[A]ny other relief that the Tribunal deems just and proper.”

### Respondent’s position
- The Fund asserts that the design of the B-level promotion process, including the selection of MDC eligibility criteria, reflects the proper exercise of managerial discretion.
- Respondent contends the Fund rules are reasonable, fair, and clearly conveyed to staff through numerous channels.
- Respondent asks the Tribunal to deny Applicant’s requests for relief on the grounds that the challenges lack merit and that some requested relief (e.g., favorable consideration for several vacancies) is “unduly intrusive of the Fund’s managerial authority and judgment.”

*Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2023-2.*

### 31. In  the  present  case,  neither  party  requested  oral  proceedings.  The  issues  presented  by

### 31–45: Oral Proceedings, Document Production, Parties’ Contentions, and Standards of Review

### Oral proceedings and record completeness
- The Tribunal noted that neither party requested oral proceedings.
- The Tribunal found the written record, which includes detailed affidavits from the Fund’s HRD Division Chief for Talent and relevant policy documents and data, to be sufficient.
- The Tribunal concluded that oral proceedings would not be useful for determination of the matter.
- The Tribunal advised the parties on October 28, 2022 that the record was complete.

### Applicant’s requests for production of documents
- Rule referenced: Rule XVII, para. 1 (applicant “may request the Tribunal to order the production of documents or other evidence which [the applicant] has requested and to which [the applicant] has been denied access by the Fund.”)
- Applicant requested production of seven types of documents, including:
  - documentation relating to MDC rules and policies,
  - career guidance,
  - B-level promotions,
  - the Unit Head selection process.
- Respondent addressed each document request in its Answer and identified or attached responsive documents.
- For two requests concerning documentation of exceptions to the Fund’s B-level promotion requirements, Respondent stated no responsive documents existed because:
  - “[c]onsistent with the Fund’s eligibility criteria for advancement to B-level roles, no Grade A14 economist has been directly promoted to a B-level SCS position”; and
  - “no . . . accommodations or adjustments were made” to the hiring process or timeline for the Unit Head position “to enable any candidates to complete attendance in the MDC or meet other minimum requirements for the position.”
- Applicant did not identify any outstanding or additional document requests in her Reply.
- The Tribunal considered no document requests outstanding and so advised the record was complete on October 28, 2022.

### Applicant’s principal contentions
- The principal arguments as summarized by Applicant:
  1. The Fund’s B-level promotion rules requiring MDC participation, combined with MDC eligibility limited to staff holding titled managerial positions, “constitute an abuse of regulatory discretion when applied in the particular circumstances of a highly experienced and highly mobile Grade A14 economist seeking promotion across career streams to a Grade B1 level position open to both economist and non-economist staff.”
  2. Applicant asserts “at least six reasons” the rules are invalid:
     - a. The rules arbitrarily differentiate between Grade A14 economists and Grade A14 SCS staff, as only the latter may hold titled managerial positions and thus be eligible for the MDC.
     - b. The requirement of a titled managerial position for MDC eligibility arbitrarily differentiates between staff with substantially similar amounts of actual managerial experience, including comparable mission chief experience.
     - c. The titled managerial position requirement for MDC eligibility “arbitrarily disregards the substantial actual managerial experience of candidates like [Applicant] more generally, including in external assignments, in favor of specific internal experiences in a selective, poorly defined and poorly communicated list of titled managerial positions.”
     - d. The Fund’s rules “unfairly penalize staff members who have moved among career tracks” to obtain diverse experiences, as the Fund encourages or even requires economists to do.
     - e. The Fund’s rules “arbitrarily require nomination [to the MDC] by a staff member’s current department even where an economist wishes to move into an SCS department.”
     - f. The rules “lack transparency regarding cross-stream eligibility for B-level positions,” and thus “contribute to an opaque promotion system that fails to afford meaningful guidance to staff members.”
  3. The Fund’s career stream-based and current department-driven promotions framework “fails to achieve the goal of fairly advancing the most qualified candidates for consideration for the small subset of B-level positions open to both economist and non-economist staff.”
  4. Relief sought by Applicant:
     - a. an order directing the Fund to make Applicant eligible for participation in the MDC;
     - b. an order directing the Fund to ensure Applicant will be considered favorably for at least three A15 or B-level vacancies in which Applicant is interested and for which Applicant is deemed qualified by the hiring department;
     - c. monetary compensation for intangible injuries suffered by Applicant after being unfairly declared ineligible for the position to which Applicant applied;
     - d. costs including legal fees (which the Tribunal may award, in accordance with Article XIV, Section 4 of the Statute, if it concludes that the Application is well-founded in whole or in part);
     - e. “[a]ny other relief that the Tribunal deems just and proper.”
  5. Applicant contends the Tribunal has authority to craft make-whole relief, including via specific performance remedies, despite Respondent’s disputes about certain forms of relief.

### Respondent’s principal contentions
- The principal arguments as summarized by Respondent:
  1. The Fund’s design of the B-level promotion process, including the MDC, reflects the proper exercise of the Fund’s policy-making authority, applied deliberately after extended consideration. The MDC followed a 1992 staff survey, extensive Fund-wide consultations, and a year-long pilot program. The Tribunal should not “micro-manage the Fund with respect to how it operates MDC – a matter that goes to the heart of the Fund’s staff development decisions.”
  2. The Fund’s promotion and advancement rules are not arbitrary or irrational simply because Applicant’s work experiences have not yet led to her promotion; Applicant is among a “bulge” of A14 economists competing for advancement. The Fund’s job grading criteria, determination of which positions qualify as titled managerial roles, and MDC nomination process are core managerial decisions.
  3. Responses to Applicant’s six arguments:
     - a. The Fund’s rules “rationally and reasonably differentiate” between A14 economists (individual contributors) and “titled” A14 SCS staff (with greater managerial duties); there is no “one-to-one grade translation for MDC eligibility.”
     - b. The Fund’s rules “rationally and reasonably differentiate” between A14 economists who may lead CD missions but lack broader managerial experience, and A15 Deputy Division Chiefs who have greater mission chief duties and other managerial responsibilities.
     - c. Classification of certain positions as “titled” managerial positions was within the Fund’s discretion, based on intensive study by HRD and stakeholders, and clearly communicated to staff; a “functionally equivalent” standard would be unworkable and less objective.
     - d. Applicant offers no support that the Fund’s promotion rules penalized her for diversity of work experiences.
     - e. Assigning MDC nominations to current departments is a reasonable managerial discretion because current departments can provide up-to-date evaluations of competency; an individualized approach would invite testimonial overload and accusations of arbitrariness.
     - f. Contrary to claims of opacity, the Fund “clearly conveyed the criteria for B-level promotions and MDC eligibility to staff through numerous channels,” such as Staff Bulletin No. 03/27 and the MDC page on HR Web; “the list of titled managerial roles eligible for MDC has remained the same since 1994.”
  4. Applicant is not entitled to relief because her challenges lack merit; some requested relief, such as favorable consideration for several vacancies, is “unduly intrusive of the Fund’s managerial authority and judgment.”

### Consideration of the issues and applicable standards of review
- Central question before the Tribunal: whether Applicant has shown that the Fund’s Grade B1 SCS promotion criteria and MDC eligibility requirements constitute an abuse of the Fund’s managerial discretion as applied to a Grade A14 economist seeking a Grade B1 SCS position.
- The Tribunal observes that challenges to regulatory and related individual decisions are “essentially indistinguishable analytically” and are to be considered together.
- Jurisdiction: Pursuant to Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Tribunal may judge the legality of “any individual or regulatory decision taken in the administration of the staff of the Fund.” Article II defines “regulatory decision” as “any rule concerning the terms and conditions of staff employment, including the General Administrative Orders and the Staff Retirement Plan, but excluding any resolutions adopted by the Board of Governors of the Fund.”
- The scope of review of regulatory decisions is “quite narrow.” The Tribunal must respect the mandate of the Fund’s legislative and executive organs to formulate employment policies appropriate to the organization’s needs and purposes.
- The Tribunal applies precedents and the de Merode test (WBAT Decision No. 1 (1981), para. 47) in assessing whether institutional changes to non-fundamental terms and conditions of employment constitute an abuse of discretion. Factors from de Merode include:
  - whether changes are adopted for reasons pertinent to the proper functioning of the organization and to ensure staff possess “the highest standards of efficiency and of technical competence”;
  - whether changes are based on a proper consideration of relevant facts;
  - whether changes are reasonably related to their intended objective;
  - whether changes are made in good faith and not prompted by improper motives;
  - whether changes do not discriminate in an unjustifiable manner between individuals or groups within the staff;
  - whether amendments are made in a reasonable manner seeking to avoid excessive and unnecessary harm to staff, with attention to the care with which a reform has been studied and the conditions attached to a change.
- The Tribunal’s prior decisions (e.g., Ms. “GG” (No. 2)) clarify that:
  - policy changes must be “based on a proper consideration of relevant facts” and “reasonably related to the objective” (de Merode, para. 47);
  - process and extent of consultation in formulating policy are relevant to arbitrariness reviews; the Fund’s policy-making discretion includes making choices among reasonable alternatives and striking balances among factors (equity, simplicity, cost);
  - the Tribunal recognizes a substantive nondiscrimination limit on discretionary authority in both policy-making and administrative functions;
  - for equality-of-treatment discrimination claims, the Tribunal applies a “rational nexus” test (as stated in Mr. “R”): (1) the Respondent’s proffered reasons must be supported by evidence (i.e., decisions “could . . . have been taken on the basis of facts accurately gathered and properly weighed”), and (2) there must be a “rational nexus between the classification of persons subject to the differential treatment and the objective of the classification.”

*Judgment of the Tribunal, paras. 31–45.*

### 46. Importantly, as the Tribunal has repeatedly noted, the “rational nexus” standard “does not

### j2023-2 - 46. Importantly, as the Tribunal has repeatedly noted, the “rational nexus” standard “does not

### Rational nexus standard
- The Tribunal reiterates that the “rational nexus” standard “does not require that there be a perfect fit between the objectives of the policy and the classification scheme established, and  indeed  .  .  .  the categories  employed  may  rest upon  generalizations.” (Ms. “G”, para. 79, as cited in Ms. “GG” (No. 2), para. 394; Weisman, para. 54; Billmeier, para. 86.)
- The Tribunal applies this standard when assessing whether differentiation in eligibility rules is arbitrary or discriminatory.

### B-level promotion rules challenged by Applicant
- Governing documents and modalities:
  - MDC requirement for B-level candidates appears in Staff Bulletin No. 03/27, “Senior Promotions and Appointments in the Fund” (December 19, 2003). Table 2 specifies selection criteria for Grade B1 SCS positions: (i) “Meet specific educational and experience requirements for the position as advertised”; (ii) “Proven technical skills”; and (iii) “Proven managerial skills (MDC a requirement).” HRD screens applications to ensure candidates meet position criteria before forwarding to hiring departments.
  - MDC eligibility, objectives, and structure are set out on the Fund’s intranet “Management Development Center” page. The “Who Should Attend?” section specifies that “MDC attendance is by department nomination and strictly limited to staff in titled managerial roles at Grade A15 (Economist) and A14 (SCS). Examples of A15/A14 titled managerial roles include Deputy Division Chiefs, Assistant to Directors, Section Chiefs, and Unit Chiefs.”
  - HRD “strongly encourages departments to nominate only those staff members who have had at least six months of formal, direct managerial experience” and “also suggests that departments nominate to the MDC only those staff members whom the department would consider nominating to the Review Committee within approximately 18 months after MDC attendance.”

### Tribunal’s analysis of Applicant’s regulatory challenge — overview
- Applicant advances six main arguments challenging the MDC participation requirement and its eligibility limits as an abuse of the Fund’s regulatory discretion. The Tribunal addresses each argument in turn.

### (1) Differentiation between Grade A14 economists and Grade A14 SCS staff
- Applicant’s contention:
  - Rules “arbitrarily differentiate between Grade A14 economists and Grade A14 SCS staff,” because only titled A14 SCS staff may qualify as titled managers eligible for MDC and B1 consideration, while A14 economists must be promoted to A15 within the economist stream first.
- Respondent’s position:
  - The Fund’s rules “rationally and reasonably differentiate between A14 economists and ‘titled’ A14 SCS staff with respect to MDC eligibility.”
  - SCS staff start at A9 while economists start at A11; career-path differences and job-architecture mean same grades can reflect different responsibilities.
  - The Fund “rationally selected titled managerial staff” starting at A14 for SCS and A15 for economists when determining MDC eligibility, considering “administrative and financial constraints.”
- Tribunal findings:
  - The decision to limit MDC participation to titled managers was a reasonable exercise of managerial discretion after extensive consultation and testing (1992 staff survey; MDC introduced in 1994; pilot with the World Bank).
  - Participation in the MDC is a practical step to identify staff ready for higher management.
  - The Tribunal concludes there is no evidence of discrimination violating equality of treatment; different treatment of groups that are not similarly situated does not amount to discrimination (citing Mr. “R”, para. 39; In re Vollering, ILOAT Judgment No. 1194 (1992), para. 2; Crevier v. IBRD, WBAT Decision No. 205 (1999), para. 25).

### (2) Differentiation between Grade A14 specialized economists and Grade A15 fungible economists
- Applicant’s contention:
  - Requirement of a titled managerial position “arbitrarily differentiates between staff with substantially similar amounts of actual managerial experience,” e.g., A14 specialized economists leading Capacity Development mission chief roles versus A15 Deputy Division Chiefs.
- Respondent’s position:
  - A15 Deputy Division Chiefs perform a broader range of managerial and supervisory duties, including more demanding Article IV mission chief responsibilities, than A14 economists.
  - Tribunal should not “micro-manage the Fund” on MDC operation.
- Tribunal findings:
  - The Tribunal finds Applicant has not demonstrated unfair discrimination; the question is whether the Fund “rationally and reasonably determined that, as a group, A14 economists in fungible and specialized roles do not have the requisite managerial and supervisory experience to be eligible for MDC.”
  - The Fund’s “Leadership Development Framework” defines managerial leadership for A15 Deputy Division Chiefs to include “Mission/Project Leadership,” “People Management,” “Operational Leadership,” “Intellectual and Strategic Leadership,” and “Advocacy and External Relationships.”
  - The grant of MDC eligibility to A15 fungible economists serving as Deputy Division Chiefs, but not to A14 economists, has a “rational nexus” to the Fund’s objective of assessing and developing managerial skills for progression to B-level.

### (3) Alleged disregard of substantial managerial experience in favor of titled positions
- Applicant’s contention:
  - Titled manager requirement “arbitrarily disregards the substantial actual managerial experience of candidates like [Applicant] … in favor of specific internal experiences in a selective, poorly defined and poorly communicated list of titled managerial positions.”
  - Proposes clear standards and an objective process to identify “functionally equivalent” managerial experience.
- Respondent’s position:
  - Job classifications and titles are the product of “continual, intensive study by HRD and other stakeholders” since the 1980s; the Fund acted “well within its discretion” in selecting which positions are “titled.”
  - Information on titled positions has been available on HR Web, Staff Handbook, MDC eligibility rules, Staff Bulletin No. 03/27, and job descriptions.
  - A “functionally equivalent” standard would be “wholly unworkable,” inefficient, and less objective.
- Tribunal findings:
  - The Tribunal is persuaded that restricting MDC participation to titled managers was a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion to focus resources on those already recognized as holding substantial managerial responsibilities.
  - The possibility that an individual accrued managerial experience outside the Fund does not invalidate reliance on internal staff categories and titles.
  - The Tribunal notes sources cited by Respondent provide examples, not exhaustive lists, of titled roles; examples across materials include Deputy Division Chiefs, Assistant to Directors, Section Chiefs, Unit Chiefs, Deputy Unit Chief, and A15 Resident Representatives in varying combinations.
  - The Tribunal suggests that Fund Management “may wish to consider how to communicate a more consistent and comprehensive list of titled managerial positions,” but finds no arbitrariness constituting an abuse of discretion.

### (4) Alleged penalty for staff who move among career tracks
- Applicant’s contention:
  - Rules “unfairly penalize staff members who have moved among career tracks” because the Fund encourages diverse experiences yet MDC/B1 rules “effectively penalize” such staff.
- Respondent’s position:
  - Applicant offers no evidence that external assignments “hurt” B-level chances.
  - Selection for a Unit Head role proceeded by “consistently-applied criteria”; shortlisted candidates included economists with broad, cross-departmental experience.
- Tribunal findings:
  - The Fund encourages A11-A14 fungible macroeconomists to pursue diverse experiences, and Applicant did so, but such experience does not guarantee advancement to A15 or B1 consideration.
  - Applicant and another A14 were ineligible for the Unit Head role due to failure to meet MDC participation prerequisite; Applicant has not shown diverse work history led to ineligibility.
  - The Tribunal finds no basis to conclude the rules unfairly penalize staff with diverse work experiences across career streams.

### (5) Departmental nomination requirement for MDC nominations (issue introduced)
- The text begins to pose the fifth main contention: whether requiring MDC nominations to be made by staff members’ current departments “arbitrarily disadvantage[s] hiring departments or potential candidates with diverse work experience?” The excerpt ends before the Tribunal’s analysis of this contention is provided.

*Extract from the Tribunal's judgment concerning MDC eligibility and B-level promotion rules.*

### 68. Applicant’s fifth main contention is that  the  Fund has acted “arbitrarily” in “requir[ing]

### j2023-2 - 68. Applicant’s fifth main contention is that  the  Fund has acted “arbitrarily” in “requir[ing]

### MDC nominating rule — applicant’s claim and respondent’s defense
- Applicant’s contention:
  - The Fund acted “arbitrarily” by “requir[ing] nomination by a staff member’s current department even where an economist wishes to move into an SCS department.”
  - For standard career paths, the current department is “best positioned to assess whether he or she is ready to move up to the next rung on the ladder.”
  - For “versatile and mobile candidates seeking a cross-stream promotion,” the current department “has little obvious interest in using one of its nominations on a staff member who is seeking to immediately leave the department.”
  - The exclusive MDC nominating rights of the current department “arbitrarily disadvantage both diverse candidates like [Applicant] and departments in need of such candidates.”
- Respondent’s assertions:
  - Assigning MDC nominations to current departments “is a reasonable exercise of managerial discretion.”
  - Current departments are “in the best position to provide up-to-date evaluations of staff member competency and readiness for B-level advancement.”
  - Concerns about conflicting management incentives are “based on an unlikely hypothetical”; the MDC’s schedule of yearly nominations and thrice-yearly sessions is not linked to specific vacancies, which arise year-round.
  - No evidence that the current process makes it “impossible” for hiring departments to connect to qualified candidates.
  - Replacing the rule with an individualized, case-by-case approach would “flood the process with ‘testimonials from numerous colleagues,’” be more time-consuming, and potentially “expose the Fund to accusations of arbitrariness and favoritism.”

### Tribunal findings on nominating rule and evidence
- Key findings:
  - Applicant presented no evidence that the nominating system harms staff seeking cross-stream opportunities or prevents hiring departments from finding candidates with diverse work experience.
  - The shortlist for the Unit Head position included economists with diverse work experience, all of whom had been nominated for and completed the MDC in previous years.
  - The record contains no indication that the hiring unit was dissatisfied with its slate of candidates or would have preferred to circumvent the MDC rules.
  - The Tribunal finds the Fund’s choice of nominating system was based on appropriate consideration of relevant facts and reasonably related to the objective of focusing MDC resources on staff most readily identified as candidates for B-level advancement.
- Conclusion on nominating rule:
  - Applicant has not shown any abuse of discretion in the Fund’s MDC nominations rule.

### Transparency and alleged opacity of promotion rules
- Applicant’s contention:
  - The Fund failed its “fundamental obligation to ‘clearly convey’ the rules governing B-level promotions.”
  - The rules suffer a “fatal lack of transparency” about (i) the “elevated role of certain titled managerial positions”; (ii) the exclusive nominating power of current departments for the MDC; and (iii) the types of career paths most conducive to a B-level position.
  - The rules “contribute to an opaque promotion system” that fails to guide staff making earlier-career decisions about cross-stream roles or external assignments.
- Respondent’s assertions:
  - The Fund “clearly conveyed the criteria for B-level promotions and MDC eligibility to staff through numerous channels.”
  - B-level promotion criteria are published “in numerous places, including the Staff Handbook, Staff Bulletin No. 3/27, and on HR Web.”
  - “Every B-level vacancy, as in this case, directs interested staff to Staff Bulletin No. 3/27, which references the MDC requirement and other eligibility criteria.”
  - “The list of titled managerial roles eligible for MDC has remained the same since 1994” and “is listed in numerous places, including Staff Bulletin No. 3/27, and the MDC page on HR Web.”
  - “The MDC page on HR [W]eb clearly explains the nominating process and the current department’s role in it.”

### Tribunal findings on transparency
- Documentary record review:
  - Staff Bulletin 03/27 specifies “MDC a requirement” among B1 promotion criteria.
  - Eligibility requirements and nomination process for the MDC, along with examples of titled managerial roles, are set out on the “Management Development Center” page on the Fund’s intranet.
  - Fund Management may consider clarifying the full roster of titled managerial roles eligible for MDC participation (noted supra at Paragraph 63).
- Specific finding re Applicant:
  - Applicant’s March 2020 correspondence shows she knew the B1 Unit Head position required MDC participation and that “being in a titled position is a pre-requisite for even being nominated to the MDC,” which “for staff in the economist stream . . . imposes effectively a requirement of having reached the A15 grade, because this is the first titled position in the economist career stream.”
  - The Tribunal finds Applicant fails to support a claim of a “fatal lack of transparency” constituting an abuse of discretion.
- Conclusion on transparency:
  - The Fund has made sufficiently clear that only staff in titled managerial roles (which start at A15 for economists) are eligible for MDC nomination by their departments and thereafter for B1 promotional consideration.

### Tribunal’s overall conclusions on regulatory challenge and individual application
- Regulatory challenge conclusions:
  - Having considered Applicant’s six main contentions, the Tribunal concludes Applicant has not shown arbitrariness, discrimination, or other abuse of regulatory discretion in the Fund’s MDC eligibility rules or requirements for B1 promotional consideration.
  - The challenged rules were based on appropriate consultation and consideration of relevant facts and were rationally related to the Fund’s goals of strengthening managerial assessment and promoting B-level readiness among proven managers.
  - It is not for the Tribunal to substitute its judgment for that of Fund Management where rules are so based.
- Individual challenge conclusions:
  - HRD’s decision that Applicant was ineligible for the Unit Head position was based on a correct reading of the Fund’s MDC requirements as written.
  - Staff Bulletin No. 03/27 specifies three key selection criteria for Grade B1 SCS positions: (i) meet “specific educational and experience requirements for the position as advertised”; (ii) have “[p]roven technical skills”; and (iii) have “[p]roven managerial skills (MDC a requirement).”
  - HRD is charged with “screen[ing] all applications to ensure candidates meet the position criteria” and acted in accordance with that process by not forwarding Applicant’s application.
  - Because the MDC requirements do not constitute an abuse of regulatory discretion and HRD correctly applied them, Applicant’s challenge to the individual decision is not sustainable.

### Decision
- The Administrative Tribunal’s determination:
  - The Tribunal concludes Applicant has not shown that the Fund’s regulatory decision to require MDC participation for B1 promotional consideration, while limiting MDC eligibility to titled managers nominated by their current departments, constitutes an abuse of discretion when applied in the context of a Grade A14 economist’s application to a Grade B1 SCS position open to both economist and SCS staff.
  - Applicant’s regulatory challenge and individual challenge are not sustained.
- Final adjudication:
  - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that: The Application of Ms. Roehler is denied.
  - Washington, D.C., January 31, 2023.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2023-2.pdf_