## REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: M. Pinto, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2025-4 (July 31, 2025) ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [REGISTRY’S SUMMARY: M. Pinto, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2025-4 (July 31, 2025)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-4-summary.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-4-summary.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-4-summary.pdf.json) --- ### Case background and procedural history - Applicant joined the Fund in 1988 and signed a voluntary separation package on April 30, 2020 (the “April 30, 2020 Agreement”) which contained a waiver of all claims in connection with her employment up to the date of the Agreement. - Shortly after signing the April 30, 2020 Agreement, Applicant complained of a purported “long-standing salary anomaly.” - The Chief of the HRD Total Rewards Division carried out a first salary review limited to Applicant’s current salary (post-April 30, 2020 Agreement) using the “comparatio” methodology and concluded the salary was “within the expected range when compared to staff member peers.” - Applicant requested administrative review, filed a Grievance with the Grievance Committee, which found the waiver effective but concluded the Fund’s choice of peers for the first salary review was “flawed” and recommended remanding the matter to HRD for another salary review. - The Grievance Committee recommended $62,000 in legal fees; the Deputy Managing Director awarded $37,200. - HRD conducted a second salary review using the “comparatio” methodology, assembling a group of 40 peers using four criteria, and concluded Applicant’s salary did not justify a salary increase. - Applicant requested leave to “appeal her entire dispute to the Tribunal as one case”; the Fund agreed she could submit the “whole dispute” concerning her salary review directly to the Tribunal. ### Issues identified by the Tribunal - Whether Applicant’s claim of a long-standing salary anomaly was admissible. - Whether both salary reviews were properly before the Tribunal. - Whether the Fund abused its discretion regarding the second salary review. - Whether the Grievance Committee process was materially impaired. ### Jurisdiction and admissibility findings - The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae under Article II, Section 1(a) and Section 2(a) of its Statute regarding Applicant’s claim of a long-standing salary anomaly because Applicant did not show an administrative act adversely affecting her that would have caused the alleged anomaly. - The Tribunal further found Applicant’s long-standing salary anomaly claim inadmissible due to Applicant’s agreement to the terms and conditions of the April 30, 2020 Agreement. - The Fund waived its objection to jurisdiction concerning Applicant’s challenge to the first salary review. - The Fund’s agreement that Applicant could submit the “whole dispute” to the Tribunal covered both salary reviews, but any defects in the first review became moot once HRD conducted the second review pursuant to the Grievance Committee’s recommendation. ### Abuse of discretion—analysis of the second salary review (four-part structure) - Overall approach: - The Tribunal addressed whether the Fund abused its discretion in conducting the second salary review, as that review determined whether Applicant’s salary would increase. - (i) Internal equity and correction of an “inappropriate” salary within a grade range - Applicant’s argument—that the Fund abused its discretion by not increasing her salary—was considered subsumed within other abuse of discretion claims and did not independently establish abuse. - (ii) Methodology for conducting salary reviews - The Tribunal found the Fund’s use of the comparatio methodology to be reasonable and consistent with applicable provisions of the Staff Handbook, given the narrow scope of the review and the Fund’s historical reliance on comparatio for annual compensation reviews. - The Tribunal found the overall conclusions of the salary review reasonable. - The Tribunal rejected Applicant’s national origin discrimination claim for lack of evidentiary support and because discrimination was not consistently alleged over her career. - (iii) Rules, guidelines, or established practice - The Tribunal concluded the salary review process is not a “regulatory decision” as defined by the Tribunal’s Statute and jurisprudence and therefore is not subject to Tribunal review when it is not the product of an organ authorized to take a regulatory decision or is not reflected in a rule, General Administrative Order, handbook or handout, statement on conditions of employment, contract, or other published official paper of the Fund. - The Tribunal observed that the absence of guidelines for ad hoc salary reviews may be problematic and can lead to arbitrariness, particularly because ad hoc salary reviews are conducted only very rarely. - The Tribunal expressed the view that the Fund should consider adopting guidelines on the conduct of ad hoc salary reviews. - (iv) Relevance of World Bank Administrative Tribunal (WBAT) jurisprudence - The Tribunal observed that WBAT salary-review elements are largely based on World Bank–specific documents and, while they may provide useful guidance in some circumstances, Applicant did not demonstrate that WBAT standards are legally binding on, or persuasive for, the Fund in the present case. ### Grievance Committee process and related claims - The Tribunal rejected Applicant’s claim that the Grievance Committee process was materially impaired. - Applicant’s arguments in support of material impairment concerned matters predating the April 30, 2020 Agreement (not part of the salary reviews) or involved the competence of the Grievance Committee, which the Committee itself must assess. ### Costs, fees, and ex gratia payments - The Tribunal found that awarding costs was not warranted because the Application was not well-founded. - Noting that Applicant’s case highlighted the absence of guidelines on ad hoc salary reviews, the Tribunal recommended ex gratia payments as follows: - $15,000 for Applicant’s attorney’s fees in connection with the case before the Tribunal. - $15,000 for attorney fees and costs in connection with the case before the Grievance Committee. - Total recommended ex gratia payment: $30,000 for attorney’s fees and costs. --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2025-4-summary.pdf_