## j2026-1 ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [j2026-1](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2026-1.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2026-1.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/j2026-1.pdf.json) --- ### Tribunal composition and representation - Tribunal composed, pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, of Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President, and Judges Deborah Thomas-Felix and Maria Vicien Milburn. - Applicant: “SS”, a former staff member of the International Monetary Fund (“Respondent” or “Fund”). - Applicant’s counsel: Mr. Adam Augustine Carter, Esq., The Employment Law Group, PC. - Respondent’s counsel: Ms. Sigrid Sulcebe, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Gaëtan van der Horst, Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department. ### Procedural history and volume of pleadings - The pleadings consist of almost 14,000 pages. - This is Applicant’s second Application; the Tribunal previously issued Judgment dated December 27, 2021 (IMFAT Judgment No. 2021-3) denying the first application on the merits. - Tribunal granted and maintained Applicant anonymity despite Applicant’s objection. - Applicant retired from the Fund on August 30, 2024. - Key procedural milestones and filings: - Applicant filed the current Application on August 2, 2023; Amended Application filed October 30, 2023; Supplemental Application filed December 4, 2023. - Fund filed Motion for Summary Dismissal (January 4, 2024) which was denied in the Tribunal’s Judgment on admissibility (January 21, 2025, Judgment No. 2025-1). - Fund filed its Answer March 10, 2025 (Supplemented Answer March 14, 2025). - Applicant filed Reply April 14, 2025 (Supplemental Reply April 23, 2025; Further Supplemented Reply April 28, 2025). - Fund filed Rejoinder May 29, 2025. - Tribunal decisions: April 9, 2025 (documents request denied as inadmissible); July 7, 2025 decision denying oral proceedings as not useful. - Parties submitted additional pleadings and requests through December 11, 2025 (supplemental request for legal fees) with Fund response December 18, 2025. - Tribunal Judgment signed in Washington, D.C., August 31, 2026. ### Relief sought and prior remedies - Applicant seeks: - payment of “adequate and proper compensation that is designed to make him whole for what he has suffered”; - “reimbursement of all attorney[’]s fees and costs that he has expended.” - Grievance Committee recommended awarding Applicant four months’ salary for multiple findings of harassment and recommended reimbursement of US$ 40,000 for legal fees and expenses; Fund senior management accepted these recommendations on May 3, 2023. - Applicant challenges the Grievance Committee recommendation to the Tribunal alleging material factual errors, misunderstanding of legal arguments, and misapplication of Fund policies and Tribunal decisions. ### Factual background — employment, postings, and Book Project - Applicant’s last posting prior to retiring was in Department X; transferred in December 2019 as part of the Fund’s Mobility Support Program. - Immediately prior to Department X, Applicant worked in Division Y of Department Z. - Many admissible claims involve Ms. A, Applicant’s supervisor in Division Y; strained work relationship dating back to 2018. - Book Project (Department Z) components: - a book, a debt dataset, and a working paper describing the debt dataset. - Applicant drafted a chapter for the book (the “Book Chapter”) and was involved more generally; parties dispute scope of his involvement. - Key Book Chapter communications and timeline: - November 1, 2018: Applicant shared Book Chapter with Ms. A and Department Z Director. - December 18, 2018: Department Z Director and Ms. A noted Book Chapter lacked a “red thread.” - December 31, 2018: Professor B described Book Chapter as “terrific” but needing a “red thread.” - Professor B testified he did not recall receiving subsequent comments/redlines between January 2019 and May 2019. - Multiple rounds of edits by Ms. A: May 20, 2019; June 3, 2019; June 4, 2019; June 13, 2019; July 8, 2019; September 27, 2019. - Ms. A described shortening chapter from “an incoherent 53 pages to a somewhat more coherent 36 pages” (July 9, 2019). - Professor B described revised chapter as reading “very nicely” (May 22, 2019) and later as “terrific,” signing off on final version (July 8, 2019). - Applicant contested substantive edits and demanded co-author approval for substantive changes (July 8, 2019). - Outcome: digital book posted on Fund’s external website and presented at a conference by Professor B; no reputational issues reported post-publication. ### Scope of claims and admissibility - Time periods: - First Period (claims addressed in first application): October 2, 2017 to October 29, 2018. - Second Period (new claims pursued through administrative review and Grievance Committee): October 30, 2018 to November 8, 2019. - Principal allegations across First and Second Periods: - failure to provide reasonable accommodations for a hearing impairment (a disability); - disability discrimination; - retaliation; - harassment/hostile work environment; - breach of a partial mediation agreement; - procedural unfairness in administrative review and Grievance Committee proceedings. - Tribunal admissibility determinations: - Seven admissible disability discrimination claims. - Six admissible retaliation claims. - Nine admissible harassment claims. - Total of 22 separate admissible claims. - Eleven admissible claims concern Applicant’s involvement in the Book Project. - Certain Book Chapter–related claims were deemed inadmissible as abuse of discretion claims but could be considered under retaliation and harassment; neither party addressed those two claims in pleadings. ### Administrative review and OII outcome - Applicant filed administrative review requests June 27, 2019 (Acting Head of Department Z) and July 10, 2019 (HRD Director); supplementary request January 6, 2020. - Applicant filed with Grievance Committee August 26, 2019; updated second grievance filed May 21, 2020. - OII findings (May 2, 2019): it was not evident to a clear and convincing standard that the planned transfer to Division R would have been effected in the absence of Applicant’s engagement in a protected activity. - OII recommended Applicant’s requested interim protective measure (suspension of planned transfer) and the DMD & CAO concurred; planned transfer was suspended (March 22, 2019). - HRD Deputy Director (September 23, 2020) concluded no evidence to support Applicant’s claims. - Grievance Committee heard merits over five days in October and November 2021 with sixteen witnesses. ### Accommodation-related factual points - Office move and shelter-in-place: - October 22, 2018: new office assigned affected by construction noise; Applicant requested another move. - January 23, 2019 Shelter-In-Place Test revealed desk phone strobe did not communicate with the Office Telephone Alert (“OTA”) system. - Determination: desk phone strobe was incompatible with Fund systems and “could not be properly integrated with the OTA system ‘without having to reprogram all the Fund’s network phone system.’” - Measures identified: OTA announcement over desk phone, “FUNDALL” e-mail and text causing phone vibration, PAS audio message preceded by “Klaxon” alarm, Everbridge app notifications, fire wardens, desk positioning. - Shelter-in-place drill on February 28, 2019 confirmed fire warden arrangement and text alert system “worked well.” - Applicant relocated to a new office with interior atrium window on March 12, 2019. - Meetings and etiquette: - May 25, 2018 Partial Mediation Agreement provided meeting accommodation guidance (six-month audiologist and HSD appointments; meeting etiquette encouragement by Ms. A; Applicant to ask colleagues to repeat and to receive summaries orally or in writing as needed). - March 2019: SPM agreed to develop written “meeting protocol” for managerial reference. - Recording/listening devices: - November 20, 2017: HSD explored “smart pen” as a work modification option (exploratory, not formal approval). - January 24, 2019: Applicant formally requested permission to use a smart pen. - March 6, 2019: SPM indicated willingness to support HSD recommendation subject to notifying colleagues and disposal of recordings once no longer necessary for business purposes. - Social events: - Partial Mediation Agreement (May 25, 2018) set procedures for Applicant to inform organizers and for organizers to make reasonable efforts to identify accommodating venues; recognition that ADA does not require public venues to grant accommodations causing fundamental alteration or undue burden. - Divisional functions agreed to turn off music for first 30 minutes to facilitate Applicant’s participation. ### Grievance Committee findings (June 3, 2022) and remedies - Grievance Committee conclusions: - Rejected Applicant’s claims of discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliation. - Found harassment or creation of a hostile work environment in specific actions, concluding these were not retaliatory due to lack of causal link: - the manner in which Applicant’s planned transfer was carried out fostered hostility; - supervisor’s disparaging comments to colleagues; - supervisor’s marginalization and exclusion from communications and work; - supervisor’s unwillingness to engage directly with Applicant. - Recommended remedies: - award of four months’ salary for intangible harm; - reimbursement of US$ 40,000 for legal fees and expenses (after exchange of pleadings on legal fees). - Fund senior management accepted the Grievance Committee’s recommendations on May 3, 2023. ### Tribunal rulings on procedural requests - Document production: - Applicant requested October 7, 2019 ICM decision (A15 Mobility Pool) and related documents; Tribunal denied request as effectively challenging a 2019 reassignment under Mobility Support Program that was “clearly inadmissible” for failure to seek timely administrative review. - Oral proceedings: - Applicant requested oral argument and additional sworn testimony; Tribunal denied the request in its July 7, 2025 Decision, concluding oral proceedings would not be useful given the voluminous evidentiary record (including a five-day oral hearing with 16 witnesses and a two-day hearing on harassment claims). ### Discrimination claims — standards and Tribunal findings - Legal and policy framework: - Tribunal applies heightened scrutiny to disability discrimination claims implicating universal human rights principles. - Burden of proof on Applicant to establish discriminatory working conditions. - Staff Handbook (February 2019 version) Section 5.3, Chapter 11.01 governs reasonable accommodation: Fund will provide reasonable accommodation at request; accommodation not reasonable if it causes undue hardship; Fund may decide between reasonable options. - Indirect discrimination claims examined (four claims): 1. deactivation of a failed OTA text feature and a failed OTA test; 2. delay in moving Applicant to a suitable office; 3. exposure to ambient noise due to delayed office move; 4. alleged failure to make City View Lounge accessible. - Tribunal findings (key points): - OTA and emergency communications: - Two-month delay in addressing desk phone strobe incompatibility did not constitute indirect discrimination; Applicant did not demonstrate harm from delay; alternative safety measures existed. - Following failed January 23, 2019 test, Fund personnel explored additional measures and provided personal briefings; Applicant later acknowledged strobe “does not connect to the Office Telephone Alert [OTA] System and will not flash in case of such an event.” - Conclusion: Fund’s handling did not produce consequential differentiation. - OTA text feature deactivation: - Alternative text and e-mail notification systems (Everbridge, “FUNDALL”, PAS) existed; Applicant did not show consequential differentiation. - Office move delays and ambient noise exposure: - Applicant requested relocation January 28, 2019; suitable office identified March 6, 2019; Applicant relocated March 12, 2019 — about a month-and-a-half after January 28, 2019 request. - Tribunal found this period reasonable given office availability, reassignment uncertainty, and time required for modifications; Applicant’s audiologist advice was not shown to have been followed. - Conclusion: no consequential differentiation. - City View Lounge accessibility: - Applicant’s August 16, 2018 e-mail cited acoustics as “too challenging” but did not specify electromagnetic interference from appliances; Applicant did not follow the Partial Mediation Agreement mechanism to notify organizers for accommodations. - Conclusion: no indirect discrimination. ### Reasonable accommodation claims — Tribunal findings - Meeting accommodations at Headquarters: - May 25, 2018 Partial Mediation Agreement provided meeting accommodation guidance (meeting etiquette encouragement; summaries as needed). - Tribunal found Applicant’s evidence (over 160 “e-mails to file”) lacked corroboration and did not show inability to understand meetings he attended. - Decision: claim denied. - Meeting accommodations while on mission (October 28, 2019 to November 10, 2019): - Record contains no evidence Applicant requested accommodations for this mission; mission testimony indicated Applicant did not request accommodations and participated effectively. - Decision: claim denied. - Use of a recording device at meetings: - November 20, 2017 HSD exploration of smart pen was exploratory; January 24, 2019 formal request prompted prompt and reasonable action subject to confidentiality caveats (inform colleagues, disposal when no longer necessary). - Decision: claim denied. - Overall reasonable accommodation conclusion: - Applicant failed to prove Fund did not provide reasonable accommodations needed to level the playing field; Tribunal concluded Fund “fully satisfied its duty to engage in an interactive process to identify and implement reasonable accommodations for Applicant.” ### Retaliation claims — standards and Tribunal findings - Applicable policy: - Fund’s revised Retaliation Policy adopted February 28, 2019 (Annex 11.01.6). - OII review standard: clear and convincing evidence that same adverse action would have been taken absent protected activity. - Tribunal’s adjudicatory standard: - Applies the standard used in prior “SS” case: Applicant must show (i) engagement in protected activity; (ii) adverse action; and (iii) causal link between protected activity and adverse action. If Applicant satisfies burden, Fund may counter with evidence of a “reasonable and observable basis” for its decisions. - Specific retaliation assessments (high-level conclusions): - Proposed transfer to Division R: - Applicant’s January 11, 2019 e-mail qualifies as protected activity. - Proposed transfer not shown to be adverse; no causal link established. - Claim denied. - Ms. A’s March 2019 e-mails: - Context provided long-standing safety concerns; communications were expressions of fear/exasperation, not adverse actions; no causal link shown. - Claims denied. - Ms. A’s revisions to Book Chapter after June 3, 2019; withdrawal of delegated supervisory authority; negative supervisory comments (July 8–9, 2019): - Applicant failed to show causal link or that actions were adverse; editorial decisions characterized as within customary purview. - Claims denied. - Alleged sidelining as co-author and publication over objection: - Applicant did not explain why editorial/publication steps were adverse nor show causal link to protected activities. - Claim denied. - Overall retaliation conclusion: - Applicant failed to meet burden on each retaliation claim (protected activity, adverse action, causal link); all retaliation claims denied. ### Harassment claims — standards and Tribunal findings - Harassment policy: - Annex 11.01.2 defines harassment as behavior that unreasonably interferes with work or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; determination focuses on effect on the complainant and whether behavior had demonstrably negative effect. - Applicant’s nine alleged harassment markers: - (a) marginalization regarding finalization of book chapters; - (b) marginalization re: debt dataset and working paper; - (c) marginalization and undue influence over the Book Chapter (post-June 3, 2019 changes); - (d) marginalization in Department work overall; - (e) March 22, 2019 negative comments; - (f) July 9, 2019 disparaging e-mail to Professor C; - (g) cold shoulder treatment by Ms. A; - (h) lack of proper office arrangements and accommodation failures; - (i) proposed transfer to Division R. - Tribunal principal harassment findings: - Book Project involvement and supervisory expectation: - Applicant lacked supervisory authority over the Book Project and did not have legitimate expectation of inclusion on every e-mail or substantive supervisory involvement (paragraphs 290–291). - Providing guidance to staff did not create entitlement to broader involvement. - Conclusion: no harassment on marginalization grounds. - March 22, 2019 and March 28, 2019 communications: - March 22, 2019 e-mail expressed documented safety concerns and was not reasonably perceived as offensive or intimidating; Applicant did not show negative effect. - March 28, 2019 statements reflected exasperation over data issues; tone could be unprofessional but not shown to have demonstrably negative effect. - Conclusion: no harassment. - July 9, 2019 e-mail (use of “incoherent” and reference to “other channels”): - Term “incoherent” consistent with record; not reasonably offensive given long-standing concerns shared by others. - Reference to Applicant’s intent to “use other channels” was factual and not objectively offensive or intimidating. - Applicant’s reputational damage claims speculative and unsupported. - Conclusion: no harassment (and Grievance Committee award already compensated certain harassment findings). - “Cold shoulder” treatment: - Avoidance by Ms. A had reasonable basis given safety concerns and prior agreements; evidence did not show deliberate harassment intended to intimidate or deprive Applicant of duties. - Conclusion: no harassment. - Office accommodations and City View Lounge: - Tribunal’s discrimination analysis addressed reasonableness; actions found reasonable and therefore could not constitute harassment. - Conclusion: no harassment. - Proposed transfer to Division R: - Reasonable basis existed to propose transfer; Grievance Committee’s contrary finding was reconsidered by Tribunal. - Conclusion: no harassment. - Overall harassment conclusion: - The nine events, individually or cumulatively, do not meet Harassment Policy standards; Tribunal finds a “clash of personalities” rather than a demonstrable pattern depriving Applicant of fair treatment. - All harassment claims denied. ### Grievance Committee process and evidentiary rulings - Tribunal jurisdiction and review: - Grievance Committee evidentiary rulings and admissibility of evidence are not “administrative acts” within Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute and thus are not subject to Tribunal review; Tribunal may review integrity of the Grievance Committee process but not routine procedural rulings. - Specific procedural complaints: - Alleged ad hoc/unpublished rules, excessive length of procedure, delay in transcript transmission, and medical-records ruling. - Tribunal findings: - Process length attributable to voluminous pleadings and number of witnesses; Applicant had ample opportunity to present case. - Transcript delay resulted from administrative error promptly rectified; no material impact. - Ruling on medical records concerned admissibility and production—outside Tribunal review. - Claims that procedural practices materially impaired the record denied or found outside Tribunal review. ### Tribunal conclusions, costs, and disposition - Tribunal findings (paragraph 368): - Applicant failed to satisfy burden of proving consequential differentiation on indirect discrimination claims. - Applicant failed to prove Fund failed to provide reasonable accommodations needed to level playing field. - Applicant failed to prove causal link between protected activity and any alleged adverse action; retaliation not established. - Applicant failed to prove actions constituted harassment individually or collectively. - Applicant did not establish how Grievance Committee process materially impaired the record. - Applicant’s plea for award of costs denied. - Disposition (paragraph 369): - Application of “SS” is denied. - Tribunal decision: - Unanimous decision denying the Application. - Signatories: Nassib G. Ziadé, President; Deborah Thomas-Felix, Judge; Maria Vicien Milburn, Judge; /s/ Paul Jean Le Cannu, Registrar. - Location and date: Washington, D.C.; August 31, 2026. *Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2026-1 (j2026-1).* ### INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... ### INTRODUCTION ### Tribunal composition and representation - The Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund (“Tribunal”) composed, pursuant to Article VII, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute, of Judge Nassib G. Ziadé, President, and Judges Deborah Thomas-Felix and Maria Vicien Milburn. - Applicant: “SS”, a former staff member of the International Monetary Fund (“Respondent” or “Fund”). - Applicant’s counsel: Mr. Adam Augustine Carter, Esq., The Employment Law Group, PC. - Respondent’s counsel: Ms. Sigrid Sulcebe, Senior Counsel, and Mr. Gaëtan van der Horst, Counsel, Administrative Law Unit, IMF Legal Department. ### Procedural history and volume of pleadings - The pleadings consist of almost 14,000 pages. - This is Applicant’s second Application. The Tribunal previously issued a Judgment dated December 27, 2021 (IMFAT Judgment No. 2021-3) denying the first application on the merits. - The Tribunal granted anonymity in the first application and maintained anonymity in this proceeding despite Applicant’s objection to anonymity. - Applicant retired from the Fund in August 2024. ### Scope of claims and time periods - First Period (claims addressed in first application): October 2, 2017 to October 29, 2018. - Second Period (new claims pursued through administrative review and Grievance Committee): October 30, 2018 to November 8, 2019. - Applicant’s principal allegations across the First and Second Periods include: failure to provide reasonable accommodations for a hearing impairment (a disability), disability discrimination, retaliation, harassment/hostile work environment, breach of a partial mediation agreement, and procedural unfairness in administrative review and Grievance Committee proceedings. ### Prior administrative review outcome - The Grievance Committee recommended that Applicant be awarded four months’ salary in damages for multiple findings of harassment. - The Fund accepted the Grievance Committee’s recommendation. Applicant now challenges that recommendation before the Tribunal, alleging material factual errors, misunderstanding of legal arguments, and misapplication of Fund policies and Tribunal decisions. ### Applicant’s requested relief and Respondent’s position - Applicant seeks: payment of “adequate and proper compensation that is designed to make him whole for what he has suffered” and “reimbursement of all attorney[’]s fees and costs that he has expended.” - Fund’s position: all of Applicant’s claims lack merit and should be denied. - The Fund initially filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal arguing res judicata and mootness as to certain claims; the Tribunal denied the Motion in its Judgment on admissibility and concluded certain specific claims are admissible. ### Factual background — employment and postings - Applicant’s last posting prior to retiring was in Department X, to which he was transferred in December 2019 as part of the Fund’s Mobility Support Program. - Immediately prior to Department X, Applicant worked in Division Y of Department Z. - Many admissible claims involve Ms. A, Applicant’s supervisor in Division Y; Applicant and Ms. A had a strained work relationship dating back to 2018. ### Book Project (central factual locus for many admissible claims) - The Book Project (Department Z) included: a book, a debt dataset, and a working paper describing the debt dataset. - Applicant was responsible for drafting a chapter for the book (the “Book Chapter”) and was involved in the Book Project more generally; parties disagree on the scope of Applicant’s involvement. - In mid-2018, an outside expert (“Professor B”) was brought in to be co-author of Applicant’s Book Chapter because, according to Ms. A, Applicant’s Book Chapter “was not in the same shape as the other chapters.” - Key timeline and communications: - November 1, 2018: Applicant shared a copy of the Book Chapter with Ms. A and the Department Z Director. - December 18, 2018: Department Z Director wrote that Professor B “did not receive the version of the [Book Chapter] you have sent me in November” and suggested Professor B help make the “red thread” clear and salient to the reader. - December 18, 2018: Ms. A testified before the Grievance Committee that Applicant’s Book Chapter lacked a “red thread.” - December 31, 2018: Professor B described the Book Chapter as “terrific” but said it “just needs something of a red thread,” and attached comments including adding a discussion of “camouflage” as the red thread. - Professor B testified before the Grievance Committee that he did not recall receiving subsequent comments or redlines from anyone in Department Z on the Book Chapter between January 2019 and May 2019. - Between January 2019 and May 2019, Applicant and Ms. A exchanged numerous communications regarding the Book Chapter; Ms. A’s view included that the Book Chapter lacked a clear “red thread,” was too long and detailed, and required restructuring. ### Administrative and adjudicative focus in the Judgment - The Tribunal’s published Table of Contents for the Judgment indicates detailed consideration of: - Factual background including A. Book Project; B. Work assignments; C. Proposed transfer to Division R; D. Accommodation issues (Office move/Shelter-in-place; Meetings; Use of recording device at meetings; Social events). - Channels of administrative review and Procedure before the Tribunal (including Applicant’s requests for documents and for oral proceedings). - Summary of parties’ principal contentions. - Consideration of issues organized by claims: A. Discrimination claims (Indirect discrimination and Reasonable accommodation claims); B. Retaliation claims; C. Harassment claims; D. Grievance Committee claims; E. Final observations. - Costs, Conclusions of the Tribunal, and Decision. *Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund — JUDGMENT No. 2026-1* ### references to economic models; that there were extraneous footnotes; and that the tables and ### j2026-1 - references to economic models; that there were extraneous footnotes; and that the tables and ### Book Chapter editing, publication, and related disputes - Multiple rounds of edits were conducted on the Book Chapter by Ms. A (Book Project editor), including incorporation of minor editorial suggestions from an externally hired editor and additional streamlining edits by Ms. A (May 20, 2019; June 3, 2019; June 4, 2019; June 13, 2019; July 8, 2019; September 27, 2019). - Ms. A described the Book Chapter as having been shortened from “an incoherent 53 pages to a somewhat more coherent 36 pages” (July 9, 2019). - Professor B responded that the revised chapter read “very nicely” (May 22, 2019) and later described Ms. A’s edits as “terrific,” signing off on the final version (July 8, 2019). - Applicant contested substantive edits made by Ms. A, asserting that changes “exceed the customary purview of a volume editor of an IMF publication” and demanding co-author approval for substantive changes (July 8, 2019). - Department Z management position: - Department Z Director testified that Ms. A’s interventions were “within the scope of what Fund editors do all the time to contributions from staff that come out in IMF publications” and felt it was safe to publish the book (testimony before the Grievance Committee). - Professor B testified he was unaware of any factual mistakes and would have expected to be involved in discussions about ethical concerns or factual errors; he reported he never received a communication from Applicant listing factual mistakes or misrepresentations. - The Communications Department Deputy Director reviewed the book (including the Book Chapter) and reported he did not see any potential reputational risks. - Applicant sought independent review and raised concerns about reputational and legal risks if the chapter were published unchanged; Applicant requested that publication be held in abeyance pending review (September 27, 2019). - Department Z pursued options to address Applicant’s concerns, including suggesting a factual footnote describing the editing process; Applicant rejected a footnote and sought independent review. - Outcome: - A digital version of the book was posted on the Fund’s external website and presented at a conference by Professor B. - Ms. A reported that since publication no reputational issues were raised and feedback was positive; Professor B reported being unaware of any factual mistakes, misrepresentations or reputational issues post-publication. ### Interactions, tone, and allegations of retaliation/harassment related to the Book Project - Applicant regularly requested clarifications from Ms. A and took issue with comments by another Department Z staff member; that staff member described Applicant’s responses as “very aggressive” and defensive, felt “a little bit upset,” and decided not to respond. - Applicant points to e-mails written by Ms. A in March 2019 and other communications as evidence of alleged retaliation and harassment. - Ms. A communicated to Department Z Director and others that Professor C (foreword author) found the chapter “quite week [sic]” and “the quality of the chapter was not up to the marks with the rest of the book,” recommending edits and suggesting it be “buried somewhere in the middle of the book” (May 22, 2019; testimony). - Ms. A’s July 8, 2019 e-mail stated: “You are welcome to provide suggestions but ultimately this is an editor’s purview to make changes consistent with the overall theme of the book. ... You[r] chapter was weaker than the others in the book ... and required extensive work on my part this past month to make sure it was in line with the other chapters in the book.” The Department Z Director forwarded that e-mail to the Senior Personnel Manager on July 8, 2019. - Ms. A told Professor C on July 9, 2019 that Applicant “is contesting it, and has threatened to use other channels to find out what his rights as a contributing author are.” Professor C advised Ms. A to “[s]tick to your guns as editor.” ### Work assignments and performance-year responsibilities - Applicant alleged reduced work assignments and lack of full-time tasks corresponding to his grade level (e-mail of October 29, 2018; January 11, 2019). - Ms. A responded (October 29, 2018) noting she had assigned Applicant to work with two Division Y staff on a note for an initiative, increased country work responsibilities, offered 2-3 more review assignments, and invited Applicant to propose analytical topics with a one-pager on motivation, key questions, and methodology. - Ms. A reiterated that departmental responsibilities are determined by the Front Office (FO) and inter-departmental possibilities would require FO discussion. - Applicant submitted preferred work responsibilities (November 1, 2018); Ms. A replied November 2, 2018 encouraging additional country assignments and directing Applicant to identify projects from the divisional analytical agenda. - Ms. A testified Applicant “did not get back to [her] at all on any of the potential topics for the divisional analytical agenda” and did not explain how proposed ideas would be implemented. - On January 16, 2019, a Deputy Division Chief provided a breakdown showing Applicant had 17 country review assignments—“almost twice as many as anyone else.” Ms. A testified that once Applicant made workload concerns known, his country review responsibilities were doubled compared to the other two staff at his position level. - SPM’s January 23, 2019 response summarized assignment discussions and stated efforts to identify additional assignments including TA missions and an analytical project; noted Applicant had not applied to a November 2018 advertisement for TA mission opportunities but the FO was trying to identify missions for him. - Applicant requested scheduling of his mid-year Annual Performance Review to discuss assignments (January 24, 2019). - On June 4, 2019 Ms. A agreed it would be good for Applicant to lead a TA mission if he expressed interest. - Applicant stated on June 14, 2019 that he had “not received any new work assignments in [Department Z] since February 1, 2019,” while also having expressed concerns about reduced responsibilities. - At a June 14, 2019 meeting with Ms. A, the SPM and an independent witness, Applicant said he lacked time for analytical agenda work due to time-consuming preparation for an administrative review and grievance. - Applicant’s FY2019 Annual Performance Review was completed on July 31, 2019; for the review period May 1, 2018 to April 30, 2019 Applicant listed several responsibilities and indicated he wanted to prepare for mobility to another Department, without asserting under-utilization during that performance year. ### Proposed transfer to Division R, OII review, and interim measures - SPM “negotiated” Applicant’s transfer to Division R within Department Z at the same grade level (January 23, 2019); Applicant objected and viewed the transfer as a downgrade and as retaliation for filing a Grievance and for reasonable accommodation requests (February 15–18, 2019). - SPM and HRD Deputy Director reminded Applicant that intra-departmental transfer decisions rest with the Department Z Director (February 18, 2019). - On March 6, 2019 the SPM informed Applicant the Director decided the transfer would take place in the interest of Department Z’s business needs. - Applicant requested an independent review from the Office of Internal Investigations (OII) of the proposed transfer, alleging retaliation (March 18, 2019). - OII recommended imposition of Applicant’s requested interim protective measure (suspension of the planned transfer pending OII review), and the DMD & CAO concurred; the planned transfer was suspended (March 22, 2019). - Ms. A wrote to the SPM on March 22, 2019 expressing concerns for personal security and safety, describing prior incidents where Applicant “lost his composure, shouted at me and refused to leave my office when asked to repeatedly,” and noting she had been forced to lock her door when staying late and to avoid hallways where Applicant’s office was located. Applicant characterizes that e-mail and the attached ethics-office exchange as causing reputational harm and as examples of retaliation and harassment. - OII findings (May 2, 2019): OII found “that it was not evident to a clear and convincing standard that the planned transfer of [Applicant to Division R], which he reasonably viewed as an adverse employment action, would have been effected in the absence of his engagement in a protected activity.” - Applicant met with OII on May 6, 2019 and sought corrective measures including: (a) revocation of the planned transfer to Division R; (b) full implementation of his reasonable accommodations; and (c) being tasked with meaningful work commensurate with his level. *Excerpt from Grievance Committee testimony and internal correspondence (IMF).* ### conclusions and of her decision, in light of OII’s conclusions, that Applicant’s transfer to Division ### j2026-1 - conclusions and of her decision, in light of OII’s conclusions, that Applicant’s transfer to Division ### Overview and key procedural milestones - Applicant wrote to OII requesting a written decision on corrective measures on June 18, 2019. - OII clarified that it issues recommendations and that management decides on corrective measures after consulting with the complainant. - OII wrote to Applicant on August 1, 2019, explaining that the Fund had applied the corrective measures requested by him. - Applicant filed requests for administrative review on June 27, 2019 (to the Acting Head of Department Z) and July 10, 2019 (to the HRD Director). A supplementary request was filed on January 6, 2020. - Applicant filed with the Grievance Committee on August 26, 2019; an “updated second grievance” was filed on May 21, 2020. - HRD Deputy Director responded on September 23, 2020, concluding there was no evidence to support Applicant’s claims. - The Fund filed a Motion to Dismiss on December 15, 2020; the Grievance Committee rejected the res judicata argument and heard new claims for the period October 30, 2018 to November 8, 2019. - The Grievance Committee heard merits over five days in October and November 2021 with sixteen witnesses, including Applicant. - Applicant filed the current Application on August 2, 2023; an Amended Application was filed on October 30, 2023. ### Accommodation issues — Office move and shelter-in-place - October 22, 2018: Applicant was assigned a new office that was affected by construction noise; Applicant requested another move. - October 29, 2018: EHSS Officer informed Applicant his office move would take place shortly and invited him to inspect the proposed office. - By early November 2018: Applicant moved to the new office but reported exposure to construction work, concerns about computer orientation, emergency strobe light location, social isolation, and a non-working desk phone strobe. - January 23, 2019: January 23, 2019 Shelter-In-Place Test revealed the desk phone strobe did not communicate with the Office Telephone Alert (“OTA”) system. - Determination: the desk phone strobe was not compatible with the Fund’s systems and “could not be properly integrated with the OTA system ‘without having to reprogram all the Fund’s network phone system.’” - January 24, 2019: EHSS Officer informed Applicant the OTA system did not work as expected with the phone strobe and stated the Fund was “doing everything possible to provide [Applicant] with the best accommodation should a SIP [shelter-in-place] event take place.” - Post-test measures identified by witnesses: - OTA announcement over the speaker on Applicant’s desk phone (OTA announcement). - An e-mail (“FUNDALL”) on Applicant’s smart phone and a text that would cause his phone to vibrate. - An audio message (public address system, “PAS”) in corridors preceded by a “Klaxon” alarm. - An “Everbridge” notification (app installed on every Fund-issued smart phone). - Fire wardens on each floor and desk positioning to view corridor activity. - Everbridge notifications: text message causing phone to vibrate plus a “pop up” on the main screen and GPS location capability if unaccounted for. - Chief of Security’s testimony: there was never an indication Applicant could not hear shelter-in-place notifications and the Fund provided highly personalized service for Applicant over nearly nineteen years. - January 25, 2019: Applicant’s audiologist advised possible relocation if noise levels were damaging and suggested removing hearing aids for comfort if not. - January 28, 2019: Applicant requested relocation to an office with no exterior windows; EHSS Officer replied the same day that a new office would be located “ASAP.” - March 6, 2019: SPM informed Applicant a “suitable alternative office” had been identified and offered to facilitate the move immediately or after transfer to Division R. - March 12, 2019: Applicant was relocated to a new office with an interior atrium window on the same floor as Division Y. - March 7, 2019 Mediation Implementation Agreement confirmed: “no Shelter-in-Place strobes or comparable devices are currently on the market that would be compatible with the Fund’s Office Telephone Alert [OTA] system.” ### Accommodation issues — Meetings and etiquette - Numerous self-authored “e-mail or e-mails to file” reference difficulties connecting to Webex and alleged poor meeting etiquette by Ms. A. - May 25, 2018 Partial Mediation Agreement provisions: - Applicant to have six-month audiologist and HSD appointments to discuss meeting accommodation measures (e.g., sitting at the table during senior management meetings or using a self-provided table-placed microphone). - Applicant to inform Ms. A if unable to participate due to technology issues so alternatives can be explored. - Applicant to share with colleagues information he considers appropriate about his hearing loss. - Ms. A to encourage meeting etiquette (one person speaking at a time; consider saving questions) without unreasonably limiting group dynamics. - Applicant agrees to ask colleagues to repeat information or ask questions during meetings if he cannot follow. - Summaries of meetings to be shared orally or in writing as needed. - March 2019 implementation discussions resulted in SPM agreeing to look ahead at Fund initiatives to issue meeting etiquette guidance and to articulate a written “meeting protocol” for managerial reference. ### Accommodation issues — Use of recording/listening devices - January 24, 2019: Applicant requested permission to use a smart pen at divisional meetings to record conversations; he stated HSD had recommended in 2017 that he be allowed to use a “smart pen.” - February 19, 2019: HRD Deputy Director noted Applicant had been stating he had accommodation to use a recording device but HSD had approved a listening pen. - SPM (February 19, 2019) confirmed HSD approved a listening pen; recording device use would require Department Z approval. - HRD Deputy Director’s testimony: colleagues explained a recording device was “different from a listening pen” and that a listening pen “would amplify the sound so that [Applicant] could hear”; they initially were not aware a listening pen “also recorded things.” - March 6, 2019: SPM communicated that recording meetings is not a normal practice at the Fund and indicated that, if HSD recommended use, Department Z would support it subject to notifying colleagues and discussing disposal of recordings after a reasonable time “once no longer necessary for business purposes.” - March 7, 2019: Applicant responded that he was “confused” about Department-imposed conditions, alleging HSD recommended a listening device in writing in November 2017. ### Accommodation issues — Social events - May 25, 2018 Partial Mediation Agreement on social events: - Applicant to inform Ms. A when he wishes to join off-site division social events and pass accommodation requests to the event organizer. - Organizer to make reasonable efforts to identify accommodating venues (including HQ2 rooftop and public parks); organizers to communicate requests to public venues in advance. - Recognition that ADA does not require public places to grant accommodations that cause fundamental alteration or undue burden; if venue cannot accommodate and no reasonable alternative is found, event may proceed at the original venue. - For in-house social events, music to be turned off for a reasonable period, normally about 30 minutes during an event expected to last around an hour. - August 16, 2018: Applicant informed Ms. A that City View Lounge acoustics were too challenging and excused himself from a farewell party. - January 11, 2019: Applicant attended Department Z holiday party beginning at 4 pm; he left shortly after loud music was turned on and returned to his office. - SPM testified it would be unreasonable to turn off music for Department Z-wide events in large rooms; divisional functions agreed to turn off music for the first 30 minutes to facilitate Applicant’s participation. - June 10, 2019: Applicant declined a farewell party invitation at City View Lounge citing exposure to interference from microwaves and vending machines making the venue inaccessible for persons with digital hearing aids. - EHSS Officer testified she did not receive any accommodation request from Applicant regarding City View Lounge structural changes. - Early September 2019: Applicant declined a farewell party invitation at City View Lounge on September 6, 2019 and reported the venue was “not suitable.” - December 1, 2019: Applicant was assigned to Department X under the Fund’s Mobility Support Program. - Applicant retired from the Fund on August 30, 2024. A farewell party was held and Applicant made no requests for accommodations for that event. ### Grievance Committee findings and remedies - Statement of issues agreed by the parties before the Grievance Committee: 1. Whether the Fund violated Section 5.1, Chapter 11.01, GAO 11, by discriminating on account of Applicant’s disability. 2. Whether the Fund violated Section 5.3, Chapter 11.01, GAO 11, by failing to provide reasonable accommodation for work-related meetings, social events, and shelter-in-place events. 3. Whether the Fund violated Chapter 11.01 and Chapter 11.03, GAO 11, by subjecting Applicant to retaliation or reprisal. 4. Whether the Fund violated Annex 11.01.2, GAO 11, by subjecting Applicant to harassment or a hostile work environment. - June 3, 2022 Grievance Committee report: - Rejected Applicant’s claims of discrimination, failure to provide reasonable accommodations, and retaliation. - Found harassment or creation of a hostile work environment in the following actions (while concluding these were not retaliatory due to lack of causal link to protected activity): - Applicant’s planned transfer to another Division over his “express opposition was carried out in a way that fostered hostility towards him within the Department”; - Supervisor’s disparaging comments about Applicant to colleagues in e-mails and as exemplified by witness testimony; - Supervisor’s marginalization and exclusion of Applicant from communications and work; - Supervisor’s unwillingness to engage directly with Applicant and giving Applicant “the proverbial ‘cold shoulder.’” - Remedies and management response: - March 30, 2023: Grievance Committee recommended awarding Applicant four months’ salary for intangible harm. - Grievance Committee recommended reimbursement of $40,000 for legal fees and expenses after exchange of pleadings on legal fees. - May 3, 2023: Fund senior management accepted the Grievance Committee’s recommendations. ### Procedure before the Tribunal - August 2, 2023: Applicant filed the current Application. - August 10, 2023: Applicant resubmitted an Appendix in bookmarked version. - October 13, 2023: Registrar requested Applicant revise and supplement the Application. - October 30, 2023: Applicant filed an Amended Application and a First Supplemental Appendix. - November 2, 2023: Amended Application, Appendix, and First Supplemental Appendix were submitted. *Source: Grievance Committee and Tribunal record excerpts in j2026-1 - conclusions and of her decision, in light of OII’s conclusions, that Applicant’s transfer to Division (PDF).* ### Appendix were transmitted to the Fund. ### Appendix were transmitted to the Fund. ### Procedural history and case timeline - On November 3, 2023, a Joint Motion was filed by the parties (1) to allow Applicant to file a Supplemental Application, and (2) to stay the Fund’s deadline to file its Answer. On November 17, 2023, the parties were notified that the President of the Tribunal had granted the Joint Motion. - On December 4, 2023, Applicant filed a Supplemental Application, which was transmitted to the Fund on December 5, 2023. Also on December 5, 2023, the Registrar advised the parties of the resumption of the period for answering the Application and the Supplemental Application. - On December 8, 2023, the Fund filed a Request for an extension of time to file a Motion for Summary Dismissal. On December 9, 2023, Applicant filed a non-objection to the Fund’s Request. On December 11, 2023, the parties were notified that the President of the Tribunal had granted the Fund’s Request. - On January 4, 2024, the Fund filed a Motion for Summary Dismissal, which was transmitted to Applicant on January 8, 2024. Also on January 8, 2024, Applicant was instructed to include in his Objection to the Motion any request for legal fees and costs incurred in responding to the Motion. - On February 5, 2024, pursuant to Rule IV(f) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Registrar circulated within the Fund a notice summarizing the issues raised in the Application and Supplemental Application. - On February 7, 2024, Applicant filed his Objection to the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal. On February 12, 2024, the Registrar requested that Applicant clarify annexes to his Objection. - On February 14 and 15, 2024, Applicant filed a Supplementation, correcting the Annexes. Also on February 15, 2024, Applicant’s Objection to the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal was transmitted to the Fund. - On February 26, 2024, the Fund filed its Comments on Applicant’s Request for Costs, which were transmitted to Applicant on February 27, 2024. - On January 24, 2025, the parties were notified of the Tribunal’s Judgment No. 2025-1 of January 21, 2025 on the Admissibility of the Application denying the Fund’s Motion for Summary Dismissal. - On March 10, 2025, the Fund filed its Answer to the Application. - On March 13, 2025, the Registrar requested the Fund to supplement its Answer. On March 14, 2025, the Fund filed its Supplemented Answer, which was transmitted to Applicant the same day. - On April 9, 2025, the parties were notified of the Tribunal’s decision on Applicant’s requests that the Tribunal (i) order the production of certain documents, (ii) grant oral proceedings, and (iii) not “grant any request from the Fund for anonymity” and, “[i]f the Tribunal orders anonymity over [Applicant’s] objection, . . . allow [Applicant] the ability to reveal himself as SS.” (Applicant’s requests for documents and oral proceedings are addressed below.) - On April 14, 2025, Applicant filed his Reply to the Fund’s Answer. On April 18, 2025, the Registrar requested Applicant to supplement his Reply. On April 23, 2025, Applicant filed his Supplemental Reply, including Applicant’s request for legal fees and costs. On April 28, 2025, Applicant filed a Further Supplemented Reply, which was transmitted to the Fund on April 29, 2025. - On May 29, 2025, the Fund filed its Rejoinder to Applicant’s Reply, including a response to Applicant’s request for legal fees and costs, which was transmitted to Applicant on June 5, 2025. - On July 7, 2025, the parties were notified of the Tribunal’s decision on Applicant’s request for oral proceedings (the “July 7, 2025 Decision”). The parties were invited to submit an additional pleading on a specific issue. Applicant filed his additional pleading on July 16, 2025, which was transmitted to the Fund the same day. On July 25, 2025, the Fund filed its additional pleading, which was transmitted to Applicant the same day. - On December 11, 2025, further to the Tribunal’s request, Applicant filed a supplemental request for legal fees and costs, to which the Fund responded on December 18, 2025. ### Tribunal rulings on specific procedural requests - Documents - Applicant requested “the text of the October 7, 2019, ICM decision (A15 Mobility Pool) and any documents relating to the motivations or communications of the participating SPMs [Senior Personnel Managers] in the A15 Mobility Pool regarding any of the candidates or the positions offered.” - The Fund argued the document request was moot because the Tribunal’s Judgment on admissibility concluded the document request concerned an administrative act not timely challenged and thus inadmissible. - In its April 9, 2025 Decision, the Tribunal denied Applicant’s request, finding the request effectively challenged a 2019 reassignment under the Mobility Support Program and was “clearly inadmissible” because Applicant failed to seek timely administrative review. - Oral proceedings - Applicant requested “the opportunity for oral argument on liability and damages, and for the presentation of additional sworn testimony of facts . . . that this Tribunal may believe needs additional evidentiary support, or for which the Tribunal wants to assess credibility.” - The Fund objected, citing a voluminous evidentiary record from Grievance Committee hearings: two separate hearings spanning a total of seven days, including multiple witnesses and issues related to liability and damages. - In its July 7, 2025 Decision, the Tribunal, noting Article XII of the Tribunal’s Statute and Rule XIII of the Rules of Procedure, concluded oral proceedings would not be useful in this case. - The Tribunal observed the record included a five-day oral hearing with 16 witnesses and a two-day hearing (six witnesses) devoted to Applicant’s harassment/hostile work environment contention. Applicant’s request for oral proceedings was denied. ### Summary of parties’ principal contentions - Applicant’s principal contentions (summarized) - The Fund discriminated against Applicant indirectly and by failing to provide reasonable meeting accommodations. - Under the new Retaliation Policy, the Tribunal should adopt a standard where, after a complainant establishes a prima facie case of retaliation, the burden shifts to the Fund to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the challenged employment action would have been taken even absent protected activity. - Under that standard, the Fund retaliated against Applicant for engaging in protected activities. - The Fund subjected Applicant to harassment and a hostile work environment. - The Fund subjected Applicant to unfair treatment concerning the “internal redress process.” - Applicant seeks as relief: - monetary damages “for the substantial reputational losses he has suffered as a result of the finalization of the [Book Chapter] and the fact that it was published over his objection and not as a work that reflects his scholarship and level of exactness for documentation of data sources”; - monetary damages “for the reputational damage caused to [his] career at the Fund”; and - reimbursement for attorney’s fees and costs. - Respondent’s principal contentions (summarized) - Applicant has failed to establish that the Fund discriminated against him indirectly or by failing to provide reasonable accommodations. - The Tribunal should use the same retaliation standard it applied in the “SS” case; Applicant’s proposed standard of proof applies to the Office of Internal Investigations (OII) in the new Retaliation Policy and is not applicable to the Tribunal. - Applicant’s claims of retaliation are unfounded: he has not proven an adverse action or a causal link between protected activity and any alleged adverse action. - Applicant has not satisfied his burden to prove harassment and a hostile work environment. - Applicant was not subjected to unfair treatment in the Grievance Committee process. - The facts support a finding that Applicant is not entitled to any relief. ### Tribunal’s consideration and admissibility overview - The Tribunal found: - Seven admissible disability discrimination claims. - Six admissible retaliation claims. - Nine admissible harassment claims. - Total of 22 separate admissible claims. - Eleven of the admissible claims concern Applicant’s involvement in the Book Project (the Book Chapter Applicant drafted, a debt dataset, and a working paper describing the debt dataset). - The Tribunal’s Judgment on admissibility deemed certain Book Chapter–related claims inadmissible as abuse of discretion claims but noted they could be considered under retaliation and harassment; however, neither party addressed those two claims in pleadings. - The Judgment will treat discrimination, retaliation, and harassment claims separately and will address claims regarding the Grievance Committee process as relevant. ### Discrimination claims — framework and standards - The Tribunal applies heightened scrutiny to disability discrimination claims that implicate universal human rights principles. - The burden of proof is on the applicant to establish discriminatory working conditions. - The Staff Handbook does not distinguish direct vs. indirect discrimination; the Tribunal recognizes both disparate treatment and disparate impact (indirect discrimination through consequential differentiation). - The Tribunal assesses Applicant’s indirect discrimination and reasonable accommodation claims against the standard that a neutral policy or action may produce consequential differentiation between groups. ### Indirect discrimination claims — Tribunal findings - Examined four indirect discrimination claims: 1. deactivation of a failed Office Telephone Alert (“OTA”) text feature and a failed OTA test; 2. delay in moving Applicant to a suitable office; 3. exposure to ambient noise due to the delayed office move; 4. alleged failure to make the City View Lounge accessible to Applicant. - Findings on OTA and emergency communications - Applicant argued delay in testing OTA core functionalities, lack of prompt response to failed January 23, 2019 OTA test, failure to provide emergency communication arrangements, and lack of transparent communication on office safety. - The Fund sought to accommodate Applicant by attempting to install a desk phone strobe despite system incompatibility. - Applicant moved into a new office in November 2018; the desk phone strobe was tested on January 23, 2019. The Tribunal concluded the two-month delay did not constitute indirect discrimination, given efforts to install an unfamiliar device incompatible with Fund systems. - Applicant did not demonstrate harm from the two-month delay. Alternative safety measures existed: Public Address System (PAS) audio messages preceded by a “Klaxon” alarm, e-mail and text messages on Applicant’s smart phone, desk placement allowing corridor visibility, and emergency wardens on each floor. - A shelter-in-place drill on February 28, 2019 confirmed that the fire warden arrangement and text message alert system “worked well” (Applicant’s own confirmation). The EHSS Officer testified there was no way Applicant could have missed a shelter-in-place event; the Chief of Security testified the Fund had provided exceptionally personalized service. - Regarding the failed January 23, 2019 test, the desk phone strobe was incompatible with the OTA system absent reprogramming. Applicant was informed the strobe did not work with the OTA system; Applicant later acknowledged the strobe “does not connect to the Office Telephone Alert [OTA] System and will not flash in case of such an event.” This incompatibility was reflected in the March 7, 2019 Mediation Implementation Agreement. - Following the failed test, Fund personnel (EHSS Officer, Chief of Security) explored additional measures (e.g., personal briefing, “buddy system”), and the Fire & Life Safety Manager provided a personal briefing on January 25, 2019. The Fire & Life Safety Manager informed Applicant on February 15, 2019 that he did not qualify for the buddy system because he was “completely able to safely evacuate, as long as [he was] aware an incident is occurring,” and explained other safeguard measures. - The Tribunal concluded the Fund’s handling of the failed OTA test and related communications did not produce consequential differentiation. - Findings on OTA text feature deactivation - The Chief of Security testified the OTA system includes a text-message feature that had not been activated. The EHSS Officer and Chief of Security described multiple notification measures: audio alarms, e-mail (“FUNDALL”), text messages causing phone vibration, and the Everbridge app producing a pop-up and vibration on Fund-issued smart phones. - The Tribunal concluded that, despite the OTA text feature not being activated, alternative text and e-mail notification systems existed and Applicant did not show consequential differentiation from the deactivation. - Findings on office move delays and ambient noise exposure - Applicant was assigned a new office on October 22, 2018, requested another within a week due to construction noise, was relocated in early November 2018 but remained dissatisfied, sought audiologist input (January 25, 2019), and requested EHSS assistance on January 28, 2019. The EHSS Officer responded the same day that a new office would be located “ASAP.” - A reassignment decision to Division R temporarily paused the move. A suitable office was identified on March 6, 2019, and Applicant relocated on March 12, 2019 — about a month-and-a-half after his January 28, 2019 request. - The Tribunal found this period reasonable given difficulties finding vacant offices, uncertainty about reassignment, and time needed for modifications. HRD testimony cited three factors making relocation time-consuming: finding a suitable office awaiting vacancy, “a few weeks” to make changes, and a “bit of a pause” due to reassignment uncertainty. - Applicant’s audiologist advised potential mitigation (remove hearing aids, wear hearing protection) if noise levels were damaging; record does not show Applicant followed that advice. - Tribunal concluded delays and ambient noise exposure did not result in consequential differentiation. - Findings on City View Lounge accessibility - Applicant alleged electromagnetic interference in City View Lounge from microwaves and vending machines made it inaccessible for persons with digital hearing aids and claimed the Fund had notice since August 16, 2018. - The August 16, 2018 e-mail cited by Applicant stated only that “the acoustics of the venue (City View Lounge) ... are too challenging for me,” not specific electromagnetic interference from appliances. - Applicant relied on numerous e-mails to file, but these were insufficient as notice: they were less specific, were internal “e-mails to file” not notifications to colleagues, and lacked corroboration. - The May 25, 2018 Partial Mediation Agreement required Applicant to inform event organizers when he wished to join and to pass on any request for accommodation; the record does not show Applicant followed that agreed mechanism or requested structural changes. - Tribunal concluded the Fund did not engage in indirect discrimination regarding City View Lounge and Applicant failed to demonstrate consequential differentiation. ### Reasonable accommodation claims — Tribunal findings and applicable policy - Applicable Staff Handbook provision - Section 5.3 of Chapter 11.01 of the Staff Handbook (February 2019 version) provides: - “[t]he Fund will provide reasonable accommodation for personnel with a disability, at their request, to enable them to perform the essential functions of their job.” - “[a]n accommodation will not be considered reasonable if it causes undue hardship for the Fund (i.e., significant and disproportionate expense or difficulty).” - “[i]n providing an accommodation, the Fund may decide between one or more reasonable options.” - Tribunal approach - Heightened scrutiny applies to claims that the Fund failed to provide reasonable accommodations to level the playing field for disabled staff; burden remains with Applicant to establish his claim. - Applicant’s reasonable accommodation claims addressed - (a) accommodations for meetings at headquarters; - (b) accommodations for meetings while on mission; - (c) accommodations to use a recording device at meetings. - Findings on meeting accommodations at headquarters (overview) - The May 25, 2018 Partial Mediation Agreement provided detailed guidance for meetings: - Ms. A to encourage good meeting etiquette (one person speaking at a time; where appropriate, suggesting questions saved until end of formal presentations), with caveat that guidelines should not “unreasonably limit or change the dynamics of group discussion and brainstorming.” - Applicant to ask colleagues to repeat information or ask questions during meetings if unable to understand or follow discussion. - A summary of the meeting and brainstorming ideas to be shared with Applicant “orally or when necessary in writing.” - (Further detailed analysis and outcomes on mission meetings and recording device requests are addressed in subsequent portions of the Judgment beyond the excerpt provided.) *Source: Tribunal record and Judgment materials summarized in the appended content unit.* ### conclusion of meetings.” ### j2026-1 - conclusion of meetings. ### Meeting accommodations at Headquarters - Applicant asserted he “continued to struggle to follow discussions in large meetings during the relevant period,” citing over 160 e-mails to file; only a small number referenced purported poor meeting etiquette by Ms. A. - Division Y meeting formats (per Ms. A testimony): (a) regular divisional “tour de table”; (b) brainstorming Division Y meetings; (c) meetings with a particular group including Applicant. - Division Y practices relevant to accessibility: - “Tour de table” meetings: Ms. A provided a recap at the end so everyone would know what was happening. - Brainstorming meetings: summaries memorialized in a document that went through iterations and was shared with the broader division. - Applicant never requested copies of the brainstorming summary documents because he had access to them. - Ms. A was aware Applicant had an amplification device and was “perfectly fine” with Applicant using it at meetings. - Witness evidence: - Multiple staff testified they did not perceive Applicant had difficulty understanding meetings or request oral/written summaries; one staff member was unaware Applicant had a hearing disability. - The new Division Y Division Chief (assumed position in September 2019) testified Applicant: (a) attended all meetings with other staff at his position level; (b) never expressed lack of understanding or requested meeting summaries; (c) never indicated lack of accommodation affected his work performance or ability to meet deadlines. - Tribunal finding: - The Tribunal denies Applicant’s claim that the Fund failed to provide reasonable meeting accommodations at Headquarters. - Rationale: the e-mails to file lack corroborating evidence and the record does not show Applicant was unable to understand meetings he attended; agreed-upon meeting guidance existed in the May 25, 2018 Partial Mediation Agreement and the March 7, 2019 Mediation Implementation Agreement was procedural in form. ### Meeting accommodations while on mission (October 28, 2019 to November 10, 2019) - Applicant asserted he “faced challenges in large meetings” during the mission he led from October 28, 2019 to November 10, 2019; the record contains no evidence Applicant made accommodation requests for this mission. - Mission testimony: - A senior staff member who was Mission Chief testified he was not aware Applicant had a hearing disability, Applicant did not request accommodations, did not use a device during meetings, and did not have difficulty participating in meetings in French, with donors, or internal team meetings. - Applicant did not request written summaries of meetings and did not exhibit difficulty in noisy environments. - Policy context: - Section 5.3 of Chapter 11.01 of the Staff Handbook: “[t]he Fund will provide reasonable accommodation for personnel with a disability,at their request, . . .” - Tribunal finding: - Applicant failed to establish that the Fund, through inaction, failed to provide reasonable meeting accommodations while he was on mission. - Rationale: Applicant did not request accommodations and testimony indicates no accommodations were needed; the Staff Handbook places the onus on the staff member to request accommodations and engage in an interactive process. ### Use of a recording device at meetings - Chronology and communications: - November 20, 2017: HSD informed Applicant work modification options being “explor[ed]” included “[u]sing [a] smart pen for taking notes during meetings, so [Applicant] can later download recorded conversations to [his] computer and review the parts which [he] missed.” This was an exploration, not formal approval. - Applicant acknowledged he did not receive “approval to use a recording device in large meetings” and referred to HSD’s “suggestion” that he be allowed to use a smart pen. - After November 2017, technology constraints affected the feasibility of smart-pen use until new conference rooms were completed. - January 24, 2019: Applicant formally requested to use a smart pen. - Early March 2019: the SPM indicated willingness to discuss the request with HSD and to support HSD’s recommendation, with caveats: (a) Applicant would need to inform colleagues present in meetings that he was using a recorder; and (b) recordings should be disposed of once no longer needed for business purposes. - Tribunal finding: - The Tribunal concludes there is no merit to Applicant’s claim that he was deprived of a reasonable accommodation to use a recording device at meetings. - Rationale: initial November 2017 communications were exploratory; Applicant did not follow up until January 24, 2019; once formally requested, the Fund acted promptly and reasonably (support subject to confidentiality caveats). ### Conclusion regarding discrimination claims - Applicant raised indirect discrimination claims and claims based on alleged failure to provide reasonable accommodations. - Tribunal findings: - Applicant failed to prove consequential differentiation for any indirect discrimination claims. - Applicant has not established that the Fund, through inaction, failed to provide reasonable accommodations needed to level the playing field for him. - The Tribunal concluded, consistent with prior holding in “SS”, that “the Fund fully satisfied its duty to engage in an interactive process to identify and implement reasonable accommodations for Applicant.” ### Retaliation claims — standards and assessment - Applicable policy and standard: - The Fund adopted a revised Retaliation Policy on February 28, 2019 (Annex 11.01.6 of the Staff Handbook). - The Policy’s objective: “to protect employees . . . against retaliation, in the form of adverse action of any kind, for engaging in a protected activity.” - Retaliation is defined: “any direct or indirect adverse action recommended, threatened, or taken because an individual engaged in a protected activity.” - Examples of protected activities (done in good faith) include: “raising an ethics concern through any of the established reporting channels”; “using the dispute resolution mechanisms”; and “cooperating in proceedings” led by OII. - OII’s review standard: OII considers “whether there is clear and convincing evidence that the same adverse action would have been taken, for separate and legitimate reasons, even in the absence of the complainant’s protected activity.” - Tribunal’s chosen standard for adjudication: - For Tribunal review, the Tribunal applies the standard used in Mr. “SS”: Applicant must show for each retaliation claim that (i) he engaged in a protected activity; (ii) he suffered an adverse action; and (iii) there was a causal link between the protected activity and the adverse action. If Applicant satisfies his burden, the Fund may counter with evidence of a “reasonable and observable basis” for its decisions. - Rationale: the Tribunal’s role is adjudicatory and distinct from OII’s expedited protective role; therefore Mr. “SS” standard is applied. - Assessment of specific retaliation allegations (high-level findings): - Proposed transfer to Division R (January 23, 2019 discussion): - Protected activity: Applicant’s January 11, 2019 e-mail alleging discrimination and retaliation qualifies as protected activity. - Adverse action: the proposed transfer to Division R was not shown to be adverse; witnesses testified transfer would have addressed department business needs and potentially benefited Applicant. - Causation: Applicant failed to show a causal link between his January 11, 2019 protected activity and the proposed transfer; temporal proximity alone is insufficient. - Tribunal conclusion: claim denied. - Ms. A’s March 2019 e-mails (alleged disparaging statements on March 22, 23/18, and 28, 2019): - March 18, 2019 e-mail misdated by Applicant; cannot be linked causally to March 22, 2019 decision to suspend the transfer. - March 22, 2019 e-mail: context shows long-standing documented safety concerns and prior incidents in 2018; Tribunal finds it was an expression of frustration/fear, not an unjustified intentional attack; not an adverse action. - March 28, 2019 e-mail: content reflected exasperation over locating data; not an intentional baseless attack; not an adverse action. - Causation: Applicant failed to establish causal link between protected activities and these e-mails. - Tribunal conclusion: claim denied. - Ms. A’s revisions to the Book Chapter after June 3, 2019: - Even assuming protected activities (May 23, 2019 rescission of proposed transfer and Applicant’s June 3, 2019 request for independent witness), Applicant failed to show causal link between such activities and the timing/quantity of revisions. - Tribunal conclusion: claim denied. - Withdrawal of general delegated supervisory authority over the Book Project (June 2019): - Applicant did not establish causal link between protected activity and alleged withdrawal; speculation/suspicion insufficient. - Tribunal conclusion: claim denied. - Negative comments from Department Z supervisors (July 8-9, 2019 e-mails): - July 8, 2019: Department Z Director forwarded a chain as “One more episode in the series. FYI.” Context: longstanding disagreements between editor and author; not unjustified or intentional attack; no causal link proven to Applicant’s June 27, 2019 request for administrative review. - July 9, 2019: Ms. A’s e-mail to Professor C reflected long-standing concerns about the Book Chapter’s coherence; not an adverse action and no causal link shown. - Tribunal conclusion: claims denied. - Alleged sidelining as co-author (post-July 8, 2019 edits and publication under Applicant’s name despite ethical concerns): - Protected activity: June 27, 2019 request for administrative review is a protected activity. - Adverse action and causation: Applicant did not explain why the complained-of editorial and publication steps were adverse nor show a causal link to protected activities; record shows usual editing process complicated by difficult editor-author relationship. - Tribunal conclusion: claim denied. - Overall retaliation conclusion: - Applicant failed to meet his burden for each retaliation claim (protected activity, adverse action, causal link); all retaliation claims denied. ### Harassment claims — standards and assessment - Harassment policy and legal standards: - Fund Harassment Policy (Annex 11.01.2 of the Staff Handbook): - Harassment: “behavior, verbal or physical, that unreasonably interferes with work or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment.” - Determination focuses on the effect of the conduct on others: “whether the behavior was reasonably perceived as offensive or intimidating by another, and whether it had a demonstrably negative effect on the other person.” - Hostile work environment defined as a situation created by a pattern of words/action/inaction whose cumulative effect “is to deprive a Fund employee of fair treatment in his/her employment or deliberately preclude the employee from performing his/her duties effectively.” - Illustrative examples that may constitute harassment include denigrating comments, behavior that demeans or causes humiliation, degrading public tirades by a supervisor or colleague, deliberate insults related to competence, and threatening/insulting comments (including by e-mail). - Harassing behavior is “especially egregious if it involves an abuse of authority or is motivated by a discriminatory . . . or retaliatory reason.” - Applicant’s nine alleged harassment markers: - (a) marginalization regarding finalization of book chapters; (b) marginalization re: debt dataset and working paper; (c) marginalization and undue influence over the Book Chapter (post-June 3, 2019 changes); (d) marginalization in Department work overall; (e) March 22, 2019 negative comments; (f) July 9, 2019 disparaging e-mail to Professor C; (g) cold shoulder treatment by Ms. A; (h) lack of proper office arrangements and accommodation failures; (i) proposed transfer to Division R. - Tribunal assessment — principal findings: - Book Project and related materials (chapters, debt dataset, working paper): - Evidence shows Applicant’s role was informal/ad hoc rather than supervisory: - Department Z “Analytical Projects List” spreadsheets list Applicant’s involvement but do not indicate supervisory authority; by July 18, 2019 Applicant was listed only for the debt dataset. - Applicant acknowledged he was “no longer formally assigned a supervisory role in the [w]orking [p]aper project” and provided informal advice to staff responsible for the working paper. - FY2019 APR (completed July 31, 2019) did not list supervisory responsibilities for the Book Project; main objectives listed did not include Book Project supervision beyond the Book Chapter. - Tribunal conclusion: Applicant had no legitimate expectation of substantive supervisory involvement or of being regularly copied on related communications; therefore alleged marginalization does not meet harassment standards (no reasonable perception of offensive/intimidating behavior and no demonstrably negative effect shown). - March 22 and July 9, 2019 communications, and editorial disagreements: - March 22, 2019 e-mail: context of documented 2018 incidents and safety concerns; Tribunal finds expression of fear/frustration, not unjustified intentional attack. - July 9, 2019 e-mail: Ms. A’s long-standing concerns about the Book Chapter’s coherence (lack of a “red thread”) were shared by others; statements not an intentional baseless attack. - Multiple criticisms and edits reflected an editor–author conflict and quality concerns rather than harassment as defined by policy. - Office arrangements and accommodations: - Tribunal previously addressed accommodation claims (see sections above) and found no failure by the Fund to provide reasonable accommodations that were needed; lack of demonstrated adverse effect on Applicant. - Proposed transfer to Division R: - Tribunal addressed this under retaliation; transfer proposal arose from legitimate departmental considerations and strained supervisor–supervisee relationship; not harassment per se. - Overall harassment conclusion: - Applicant’s nine identified incidents do not cumulatively meet the harassment or hostile work environment standards set out in the Harassment Policy. - Tribunal denies Applicant’s harassment and hostile work environment claims. *IMF Tribunal Judgment — “conclusion of meetings.” (j2026-1)* ### conclusion. ### conclusion ### Legitimate expectation, supervisory authority, and involvement in the Book Project - Paragraph 290: Applicant did not have supervisory authority over any aspect of the Book Project, including the debt dataset and the working paper; therefore Applicant did not have a legitimate expectation of being included on every e-mail regarding the debt dataset and the working paper or of having more substantive involvement in either project. - Paragraph 290: Providing some guidance to the two staff members responsible for the debt dataset and working paper did not establish a legitimate expectation of broader involvement. - Paragraph 291: A staff member’s interest in a project does not dictate how Fund management must act; a discretionary decision by the Fund not to involve a staff member more thoroughly is not, by itself, evidence of harassment. - Paragraph 291: Ms. A chose not to involve Applicant more thoroughly; there is no evidence suggesting her decision was made for reasons that were improper. ### March 28, 2019 e-mail and oral comments to the then-Research Assistant - Paragraphs 292–296: The March 28, 2019 e-mail criticized Applicant’s saving of data for the Book Chapter; the then-Research Assistant testified that Ms. A’s criticisms were “unfair” and that one instance of Ms. A speaking with him about Applicant’s performance was “unprofessional,” but he could not recall specifics. - Paragraph 293: The Grievance Committee found Ms. A’s “comments” to the then-Research Assistant to be “part of a pattern of harassment”; the Tribunal addressed both the e-mail and the oral comments and reached a different conclusion. - Paragraph 294: The Tribunal found Ms. A’s March 28, 2019 statements were not “knowingly baseless” but “mainly an expression of exasperation when faced with the difficulty to locate certain data and the attendant delays.” - Paragraph 294: Although tone could be perceived as sarcastic or unprofessional, Applicant failed to show the message had a demonstrably negative effect on him or formed part of a cumulative “pattern” depriving him of fair treatment. - Paragraph 295: Complaints to colleagues about another colleague’s performance are unprofessional, but the Tribunal could not conclude the alleged oral comments rose to the level of harassment because the then-Research Assistant could not recall what was said. ### Changes to the June 3, 2019 version of the Book Chapter - Paragraphs 297–301: Applicant’s complaints about Ms. A’s edits included allegations that she (a) harbored a pervasive negative perception of Applicant, (b) failed to set up open communications with co-author Professor B, (c) pressured Applicant to refer to irrelevant economic models, (d) made last-minute substantial textual changes and deleted references to primary sources without involving Applicant, (e) materially changed the narrative developed by Applicant and Professor B without discussion, (f) made further significant changes after July 8, 2019 without discussion, (g) did not copy Applicant on communications in October 2019, and (h) did not provide Applicant a published version or allow sign-off. - Paragraphs 298–299: Department Z Director and Professor B testified that Ms. A’s interventions and edits were within the customary purview of Fund editors and customary for edited volumes; Professor B found the final version “to be clear and accessible and not in any sense a distortion of the original version.” - Paragraph 299: Ms. A testified she was “equally brutal” on all writers; another staff member confirmed extensive edits and deletions from initial drafts. - Paragraphs 300–301: The Tribunal found no evidence that Ms. A acted beyond her editorial purview or that the final Book Chapter was a distortion or tainted by mistakes; the Deputy Director of the Communications Department reviewed the book and did not identify reputational risks. - Paragraphs 302–305: October 16–17, 2019 e-mails reflect Professor B’s additional changes in response to Ms. A’s September 27, 2019 “pass proofs” request; Applicant chose not to provide additional input and instead asserted he had not approved final changes and sought to hold the book launch in abeyance citing a purported “legal conflict.” - Paragraph 304: Given Applicant’s expressed unwillingness to provide further comments and his Grievance filing, it was not unreasonable for Ms. A to exclude Applicant from her October communications with Professor B; continuing to engage with Applicant could have aggravated the situation and delayed finalization. - Paragraph 305: Applicant’s complaint that he was not provided a published version or allowed to sign off was not construed as an improper exclusion because Applicant had expressed his intent to challenge the editing process and could have obtained a copy himself. - Paragraph 306: To prove harassment, behavior must (a) reasonably and objectively be considered offensive or intimidating by another, and (b) have had a demonstrably negative effect on the complainant; the Tribunal found Applicant did not meet these elements with respect to Ms. A’s edits. - Paragraph 306: The Tribunal found Applicant had not shown a pattern of words, actions, or behavior that cumulatively deprived him of fair or impartial treatment or deliberately precluded him from performing his duties. - Conclusion on this claim: The Tribunal dismissed Applicant’s claim that Ms. A’s changes to the June 3, 2019 version of the Book Chapter constituted harassment. ### Alleged marginalization with respect to Department Z work and acting responsibilities - Paragraph 307: Applicant alleged Ms. A interfered with Front Office responsibilities, repeatedly reassigned work, and excluded him from tasks where he served as alternate. - Paragraphs 308–309: November 14, 2018 e-mail (Mid-Point Note) and January 9, 2019 e-mail do not demonstrate marginalization; Ms. A explained she was taking the lead because she had been participating in meetings and solicited Department Z comments, and Applicant chose not to provide comments though he had opportunities. - Paragraphs 310–311: June 24–25, 2019 e-mail exchanges while Ms. A was travelling do not show interference with Applicant’s acting responsibilities; they reflect exercise of managerial responsibilities and pursuit of efficient action. - Paragraphs 312–313: Applicant alleged lack of forward-looking objectives discussions; the SPM testified year-end APR is not forward looking and that a separate objectives-setting meeting is typical; evidence is unclear whether a meeting occurred with Applicant, and Applicant was actively seeking mobility to another department via the Mobility Support Program (“MSP”) during this period: - Paragraph 313: Applicant met with the Department Z Director and the SPM on June 12, 2019 to discuss inter-departmental mobility prospects. - Paragraph 313: Applicant stated in his FY2019 APR, completed on July 31, 2019, that he would focus on preparing for mobility to another Department. - Paragraph 313: Applicant was informed on August 12, 2019 that he would take part in the 2019 MSP round for his position. - Paragraph 313: In December 2019, Applicant was assigned to a different Department under the MSP. - Paragraph 313: Given Applicant’s preparations to leave Department Z, the Tribunal found unclear what value a missed objectives-setting meeting would have had. - Paragraph 314: The Tribunal concluded Applicant was not marginalized with respect to work in Department Z overall and that there is no merit to his claim that any purported marginalization constituted harassment. ### March 22, 2019 e-mail - Paragraph 315: The March 22, 2019 e-mail and its context were analyzed in the Tribunal’s retaliation section (paragraphs 240–242); the March 22, 2019 e-mail constituted Ms. A’s most recent articulation of concerns about Applicant’s behavior toward her. *Tribunal conclusion (IMF).* ### 316. Such concerns do not come as a surprise given the state of shock she appears to have been ### j2026-1 - 316. Such concerns do not come as a surprise given the state of shock she appears to have been ### Harassment findings — March 22, 2019 e-mail - Tribunal finding: Ms. A’s March 22, 2019 e-mail could not reasonably have been perceived as offensive or intimidating by another. - Applicant did not demonstrate any negative effect from that e-mail. - Applicant did not show the e-mail formed part of a “pattern” of words, actions or behavior that cumulatively deprived him of fair treatment or precluded him from performing duties effectively. - Claim outcome: Applicant’s claim regarding the March 22, 2019 e-mail denied. - Context: The March 22, 2019 e-mail was written less than eight months after the July 31, 2018 Additional Points of Agreement; record shows ongoing strained relationship between Applicant and Ms. A, of which the SPM was aware. ### Harassment findings — July 9, 2019 e-mail (use of the word “incoherent” and “other channels”) - Facts: - On July 9, 2019, Ms. A wrote to Professor C that she had “shortened the [Book Chapter] from an incoherent 53 pages to a somewhat more coherent 36 pages,” and that Applicant was “contesting” her changes and had “threatened to use other channels to find out what his rights as a contributing author are.” - Record shows multiple earlier communications (e.g., February 18, 2019; February 19, 2019; February 21, 2019; March 7, 2019; March 18, 2019; March 25, 2019; May 22, 2019) in which Ms. A expressed concerns about length, coherence, and need for streamlining of the Book Chapter. - Professor C and others regarded the Book Chapter as weak; Ms. A relayed Professor C’s view that the chapter “was ‘quite week’ (sic)” and “should be further tightened.” - Tribunal analysis and conclusions: - The term “incoherent” is factually consistent with the record and could objectively describe the Book Chapter. - Given Ms. A’s long-standing concerns and Professor C’s similar views, the use of “incoherent” could not reasonably be perceived as offensive or intimidating by another. - Applicant did not demonstrate that the word formed part of a broader “pattern” depriving him of fair treatment. - Applicant’s claims of reputational damage (reduced contact with Professor C; lost opportunities) were speculative and unsupported by evidence beyond Applicant’s own testimony. - Regarding reference to Applicant’s “threatened to use other channels”: Applicant’s original wording was unspecific; Ms. A’s repetition was factual but unnecessary to Professor C’s editing work and lacked specificity. An objective observer would not inevitably conclude it was reasonably offensive or intimidating. - Applicant had already received compensation from the Fund in respect of the Grievance Committee’s findings of harassment, which included consideration of Ms. A’s July 9, 2019 e-mail. - Claim outcome: Tribunal denies that comments in the July 9, 2019 e-mail constituted harassment. ### Harassment findings — “cold shoulder” treatment - Applicant’s assertions: - Ms. A systematically gave him the “cold shoulder” (avoiding eye contact, passing without greeting) after his office move in March 2019; asserted intimidation and diminished professional standing. - Cited self-authored e-mails dated October 2018 through September 2019 documenting encounters and observations. - Tribunal findings: - Evidence shows longstanding concerns by Ms. A about Applicant’s behavior dating back to mid-2018; restrictions and office relocation followed the July 31, 2018 Additional Points of Agreement. - Testimony from a Division Y staff member that she did not recall seeing Applicant and Ms. A together could reflect Applicant’s limited attendance at divisional meetings (Applicant may have been avoiding Ms. A). - Any avoidance by Ms. A had reasonable basis given her expressed concerns and safety fears (e.g., March 22, 2019 e-mail). - Ms. A’s interactions were consistent with the July 31, 2018 Additional Points of Agreement still in effect. - Claim outcome: Tribunal denies that Ms. A deliberately gave Applicant the “cold shoulder” or that such conduct constituted harassment. ### Harassment findings — office accommodations and accessibility - Applicant’s assertions: - Office arrangements until March 13, 2019 prevented use of hearing aids in the morning and risked further hearing loss. - Difficulty participating in large divisional meetings; denial of approval to use a recording device in meetings. - Inability to attend social events at City View Lounge (accessibility concerns) including Ms. A’s farewell party. - Tribunal analysis: - Tribunal previously addressed these contentions as discrimination claims at paragraphs 163-205 and concluded the Fund acted reasonably in each instance and did not engage in discrimination. - Same reasonableness analysis applies to harassment claims: if an action is reasonable it cannot reasonably be perceived as offensive or intimidating nor be part of a pattern depriving Applicant of fair treatment. - Claim outcome: Tribunal rejects Applicant’s claim that the Fund failed to provide proper office arrangements or reasonable accommodations; harassment claim denied. ### Harassment findings — proposed transfer to Division R - Applicant’s assertions why transfer constituted harassment: - Assignment mismatched to his experience. - Short tenure likely due to mandatory mobility after seven years in Department Z. - Speculation that others would question why he was reassigned. - No existing position at his level in Division R at that time. - Grievance Committee finding: Ms. A “was the moving force behind [Applicant’s] proposed transfer” and the transfer constituted harassment; it deprived Applicant of fair and impartial treatment. - Tribunal findings: - Tribunal finds a reasonable basis existed to propose Applicant’s transfer to Division R (see paras. 226-231). - Applicant’s assertions of awkwardness and lost career opportunities were unsupported by evidence. - Claim outcome: Proposed transfer did not constitute harassment; claim denied. ### Tribunal conclusion regarding harassment claims - Summary: - Nine events cited by Applicant, individually or collectively, do not meet the Fund’s Harassment Policy standard as interpreted in relevant case law. - Events reflect often diverging views or a “clash of personalities” between Applicant and Ms. A rather than a demonstrable pattern of unfair treatment with negative effect. - Claim outcome: All harassment claims denied. ### Grievance Committee process claims — Tribunal jurisdiction and findings - Applicant’s procedural objections: - Grievance Committee procedural rules alleged ad hoc, unpublished, unknown to staff and counsel; asserted material impairment of record. - Complaint that the Fund has an “unreasonably long grievance procedure.” - Delay in sharing pre-hearing conference transcripts (received on November 4, 2022 at 2:33 pm after a 1 pm conference). - Grievance Committee ruling (November 4, 2022) allegedly required Applicant to share all medical records by November 9, 2022 in order to rely on physician as fact witness; Applicant asserted inconsistency with U.S. and D.C. law and HIPAA. - Tribunal legal positions and findings: - Decisions of the Grievance Committee on admissibility of evidence and production of documents are not subject to review by the Tribunal; such decisions are not “administrative acts” within Article II of the Tribunal’s Statute. Applicant’s challenge to evidentiary rulings falls outside Tribunal review. - The Staff Handbook section on the Grievance Committee incorporates procedural rules on evidence and production; Tribunal may review integrity of the Grievance Committee process but not its procedural rulings. - Length of the Grievance Committee process was largely due to voluminous pleadings, number of hearings, and witnesses; process afforded Applicant ample opportunity to argue his case. - Delay in transcript transmission resulted from an administrative error promptly rectified; no material impact on the record; Applicant acknowledged receipt and did not claim denial of opportunity to review. - Ruling on medical records concerned admissibility and production—matters not reviewable by the Tribunal. - Claim outcomes: - Claims that Grievance Committee procedural practices materially impaired the record denied or outside Tribunal review as appropriate. - Claim that length of process materially impaired record denied. - Claim that transcript delay materially impaired record denied. - Claim regarding Grievance Committee’s ruling on medical records denied (outside review jurisdiction). ### Final observations by the Tribunal - Remedies already awarded at grievance stage: - Applicant was awarded monetary compensation in the amount of four months’ salary and was reimbursed US$ 40,000 for legal fees and costs at the grievance stage. - Tribunal notes: - While Ms. A’s behavior was at times inappropriate, Tribunal explained why her behavior did not violate Fund law in this context and could not result in compensation beyond the Grievance Committee’s recommendation. - Applicant advanced numerous contentions related to discrimination, retaliation and harassment; some contentions contradictory and many unsupported despite numerous annexes comprising hundreds of pages. - The Fund contended all admissible claims lacked merit but did not address all admissible claims or many contentions. - Tribunal emphasizes importance of non-discrimination principle and expectation that such issues be litigated with vigor and presented clearly with accurate references to supporting documentation. - Volume and manner of Applicant’s pleadings made Tribunal’s task time-consuming. ### Costs - Legal framework: Article XIV, Section 4 of the Tribunal’s Statute permits ordering reasonable costs to be borne by the Fund if the Tribunal concludes an application is well-founded in whole or in part. - Tribunal decision: Application not well-founded; Applicant’s plea for award of costs denied. *Tribunal judgment and findings as set out in the Judgment.* ### CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ### CONCLUSIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ### Tribunal findings (paragraph 368) - Applicant has failed to satisfy his burden of proving that he suffered consequential differentiation with regard to any of his indirect discrimination claims. - Applicant has failed to satisfy his burden of proving that the Fund, through inaction, failed to provide reasonable accommodations that were needed to level the playing field for him. - Applicant has not satisfied his burden of proving a causal link between a protected activity and any alleged adverse action, thereby failing to establish any retaliation. - Applicant has not satisfied his burden of proving that the Fund’s actions, either individually or collectively, constituted harassment. - Applicant has not established how any of the complained-of elements of the Grievance Committee process materially impaired the record in his case. - Applicant’s plea for the award of costs is denied. ### Disposition (paragraph 369) - Accordingly, the Application must be denied. ### Related citation - “TT”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent, IMFAT Judgment No. 2022-1 (June 30, 2022), para. 203. ### Tribunal decision (DECISION) - For these reasons the Administrative Tribunal of the International Monetary Fund unanimously decides that: - The Application of “SS” is denied. - Signatories: - Nassib G. Ziadé, President - Deborah Thomas-Felix, Judge - Maria Vicien Milburn, Judge - /s/ Nassib G. Ziadé, President - /s/ Paul Jean Le Cannu, Registrar - Location and date: - Washington, D.C. - August 31, 2026 --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/j2026-1.pdf_