## Ms. “PP”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Applicant’s Request for Provisional Relief and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in Part), IMFAT Order No. 2019-1 (October 10, 2019)

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Ms. “PP”, Applicant v. International Monetary Fund, Respondent (Applicant’s Request for Provisional Relief and Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in Part), IMFAT Order No. 2019-1 (October 10, 2019)](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2019-1-summary.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2019-1-summary.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/imfat/o2019-1-summary.pdf.json)

---

### Background
- Applicant challenged the decision of the Director of the Human Resources Department (HRD) that Applicant “failed to afford . . . fair and reasonable treatment” to a G-5 household employee and “engaged in conduct that reflected adversely on the Fund,” in violation of Fund rules.
- The HRD Director issued a “disciplinary” measure: a formal written reprimand to remain in Applicant’s personnel file for three years.
- The HRD Director also issued an “administrative” decision that:
  - directed Applicant to end the employment of a different G-5 employee who remained employed in Applicant’s household; and
  - stated that the Fund would not be able to support applications made by Applicant for G-5 visas in the future, because the HRD Director was “obliged to make the [decision] in the interests of the Fund,” due to the “position communicated to [the Fund] by the [U.S.] State Department.”
- Applicant challenged both the “disciplinary” decision and the “administrative” decision.

### Request for Provisional Relief — Tribunal’s analysis and decision
- Applicant sought provisional relief in the form of an order:
  - “(1) prohibiting the Fund from requiring [the current G-5 employee]’s dismissal from [Applicant]’s home during the pendency of this case; and
  - (2) requiring the Fund to secure all necessary visa actions by the State Department (e.g. an I94 renewal) to permit [the G-5 employee]’s continued employment by [Applicant] during the pendency of this case.”
- The Tribunal emphasized that provisional relief is an extraordinary measure and an exception to the ordinary rule in Statute, Article VI, Section 4, that the filing of an application “shall not have the effect of suspending the implementation of the decision contested.”
- The Tribunal considered:
  - Whether Applicant sought suspension of a decision contested in the Tribunal;
  - Whether Applicant showed “irreparable harm” in the absence of the provisional relief; and
  - Whether Applicant could assert provisional relief based on alleged “irreparable harm” to the current G-5 employee.
- The Tribunal concluded:
  - Part of Applicant’s request did not seek suspension of a decision contested in the Tribunal and was denied on that basis.
  - As to the part that did seek suspension (preventing termination of the current G-5 employee), Applicant had not shown “irreparable harm.” The Tribunal observed Applicant had been on notice for more than a year that her current G-5 employee must leave her household and had ample opportunity to make alternate arrangements with non-G-5 visa holders.
  - Applicant’s attempt to assert “irreparable harm” on behalf of the current G-5 employee failed because Applicant did not meet the requirements for provisional relief as envisaged by the Commentary on the Statute, which concerns the employment relationship between the Fund and its own staff members.
- Conclusion: The Tribunal denied Applicant’s Request for Provisional Relief.

### Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss in Part — admissibility and disposition
- The Fund moved to dismiss in part, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the “administrative” decision because the decision to terminate Applicant’s eligibility to hire G-5 employees was a decision of the U.S. State Department rather than of the Fund.
- The Tribunal observed that its Statute and Rules of Procedure do not expressly provide for a motion to dismiss part of an application before full pleadings, but neither do they exclude that possibility.
- Given the expedited exchange of preliminary pleadings and the close relationship between the Fund’s opposing arguments on provisional relief and the Motion to Dismiss in Part, the Tribunal found the Motion admissible.
- On the merits, the Tribunal concluded it would better serve the interests of justice to decide all issues, including the challenge to eligibility to hire G-5 employees, following a full briefing on the merits.
- The Tribunal dismissed the Motion to Dismiss in Part without prejudice to the Fund raising jurisdictional arguments in pleadings on the merits.

### Other rulings and case management
- The Tribunal granted Applicant’s request for anonymity because the case involves a challenge to a misconduct decision and has implications for the personal privacy of Applicant and other individuals.
- The Tribunal placed the Fund under a continuing obligation to produce documents responsive to one of Applicant’s requests for production of documents.
- The Tribunal denied another of Applicant’s requests for production of documents.
- The Tribunal granted the Fund’s motion to strike from the record a document inadvertently produced that was protected by attorney-client privilege.
- Following Order No. 2019-1, the exchange of pleadings on the merits resumed.

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/imfat/o2019-1-summary.pdf_