Judgment No. 2004
1. THE IMPUGNED DECISION IS QUASHED.
2. THE APPOINTMENT OF MS W. IS SET ASIDE.
3. THE CASE IS SENT BACK TO THE ORGANIZATION.
4. THE WHO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 5,000 UNITED STATES DOLLARS IN MORAL DAMAGES.
5. THE WHO SHALL PAY THE COMPLAINANT 1,000 DOLLARS IN COSTS.
6. ALL OTHER CLAIMS ARE DISMISSED.
Out of six candidates, only the complainant was interviewed by video conference. "While the Tribunal is not to be understood as saying that a video conference is not a perfectly acceptable method of conducting interviews, care must always be taken to ensure that no candidate is given a potentially unfair advantage by that process. Flying one person across the ocean to be interviewed while leaving a competitor from the same area at home is open to the interpretation of unequal treatment."
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; remand; case sent back to organisation; equal treatment; competition; discretion; limits; flaw; procedural flaw; bias
"The Tribunal wishes to emphasise that there is nothing wrong in having a policy aimed at gender parity. For too long women have been subjected to discrimination in appointments to senior posts which can be proved by statistics. But this policy cannot be achieved by setting quotas and by reverse discrimination, in other words, by the appointment for particular posts of women who are less qualified than men. This is contrary to [Staff] Regulation 4.3 which provides that selection shall be without regard to race, creed or sex'. The policy can be achieved by different means [...] but the bottom line must always be that the person best qualified should be appointed."
Organization rules reference: WHO STAFF REGULATION 4.3
complaint allowed; complaint allowed in part; decision quashed; remand; case sent back to organisation; equal treatment; sex discrimination; appointment; competition; candidate; qualifications; priority; right