## “SS” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2025-1 (January 21, 2025) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [“SS” (No. 2), Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, IMFAT Judgment No. 2025-1 (January 21, 2025)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-1-summary.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-1-summary.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-1-summary.pdf.json) --- ### Background - Applicant’s second Application before the Tribunal followed a prior Judgment dated December 27, 2021, in which the Tribunal denied the first application on the merits. - In the first application (the “First Period”), Applicant’s claims arose during the time period covering October 2, 2017 to October 29, 2018 (the “First Period”). - Parties stipulated Applicant had a hearing impairment constituting a disability within the meaning of the Fund’s policy prohibiting disability discrimination and providing for the reasonable accommodation of disabilities within the workplace. - In the first application Applicant alleged: (a) failure to provide reasonable accommodations for his disability; (b) discrimination based on his disability; (c) retaliation; (d) a pattern of unfair treatment (addressed within the framework of the Fund’s harassment and hostile work environment policies); (e) breach of the terms of a partial mediation agreement; and (f) procedural unfairness in the administrative review and Grievance Committee proceedings. - In “SS” (No. 2) Applicant alleged disability discrimination, retaliation, and harassment and a hostile work environment arising during the period covering October 30, 2018 until the end of November 2019 (the “Second Period”), and additionally asserted managers’ abuse of discretion regarding publication of a book chapter and unfair treatment concerning the “internal redress process.” ### Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal — principal arguments - The Fund argued primarily that Applicant’s disability discrimination, retaliation, and harassment and hostile work environment claims should be dismissed as res judicata. - The Fund argued one example of alleged retaliation and harassment and hostile work environment (a planned but rescinded transfer to another Division) was moot. - The Fund stated that “[t]he remainder of the case should be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” - The Fund interpreted Applicant’s request for documents concerning a mobility support program exercise as a veiled attempt to challenge a 2019 reassignment to another Department. ### Res judicata analysis and Tribunal’s approach - The Tribunal set out factors it will consider when assessing res judicata as a defense: (a) the claims raised by the applicant in the earlier case; (b) the purpose of the earlier litigation; (c) the legal arguments put forward by the parties and considered by the Tribunal in the earlier case; and (d) the Tribunal’s decision and its rationale in the earlier judgment. - Tribunal observations: - Applicant raised the same general categories of claims in both applications. - The purpose of the previous litigation and the present litigation was essentially the same: to determine whether Applicant’s discrimination, retaliation, and harassment and hostile work environment claims had merit and warranted the payment of compensation. - Most legal arguments on the merits appeared to be the same as in the previous case. - The Tribunal in the first case dismissed the application in its entirety. - Nonetheless, Applicant presented different factual claims arising in a different time period and in some instances identified relevant documents and rules not considered in the first application. - Tribunal conclusion on res judicata: - New factual claims arising in the new time period were not barred by res judicata. ### Mootness of the rescinded reassignment decision - The Fund argued the reassignment decision should be summarily dismissed as moot because it was rescinded. - The Tribunal rejected that argument, noting the rescinded reassignment could have present legal effect on Applicant’s position. - The Tribunal observed a dispute remained because Applicant sought monetary damages for alleged “damaging effects” of the alleged incidents of retaliation and harassment and hostile work environment, under which the rescinded reassignment fell. ### Book chapter publication claim - Applicant claimed managers abused their discretion regarding publication of a book chapter he drafted. - Tribunal conclusion: - The abuse of discretion claim was not properly before the Tribunal because it had not been explicitly addressed on administrative review and had not been considered by the Grievance Committee. - The Tribunal nevertheless decided to consider Applicant’s complaints regarding the book chapter under the rubrics of retaliation and harassment and hostile work environment, consistent with how those complaints were handled in administrative review and grievance processes. ### Internal redress process and Grievance Committee review - Applicant alleged unfair treatment in the “internal redress process” with six specific claims. - Tribunal findings: - Two of the six claims were administrative acts for which Applicant had not sought to exhaust administrative remedies; these two claims were inadmissible. - The Tribunal does not function as an appellate body to the Grievance Committee but is competent to review the integrity of the Grievance Committee process. - The principal concern in such review is whether information was purposefully withheld so that the Grievance Committee process “materially impaired the record in an applicant’s case.” - Any claims about the Grievance Committee process would be reviewed only to the extent Applicant asserted the process materially impaired the record in his case. ### Mobility support program exercise and reassignment challenge - Applicant requested documents concerning a mobility support program exercise that resulted in a reassignment to a different Department. - Applicant asserted he was only raising an issue of failure of fair process, not challenging the reassignment decision. - Tribunal findings: - The Tribunal rejected Applicant’s assertion that he was not seeking to challenge the reassignment decision because a claim of “a failure of fair process” involving an administrative act (the reassignment decision) would necessarily involve a challenge to the administrative act itself. - Recalling Applicant’s prior attempts to challenge the reassignment decision, the Tribunal agreed with the Grievance Committee that Applicant had failed to seek administrative review of the decision and, in any event, had failed to file a timely grievance. - Applicant’s challenge of the process pertaining to the 2019 mobility exercise was therefore clearly inadmissible. ### Disposition - The Motion for Summary Dismissal was denied except for the following claims, which were held to be clearly inadmissible: - (a) Applicant’s claim that his managers abused their discretion regarding publication of a book chapter; - (b) two of Applicant’s six claims of unfair treatment in the “internal redress process”; - (c) Applicant’s challenge of the process regarding the 2019 mobility exercise. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-1-summary.pdf_