What happens when you’re a female staff member, sexually harassed by supervisors who abuse their authority for three years, and Administration does nothing to protect you?
NOTHING.
The Story started in February 2020.
Female staff member.
Sexually harassed by her supervisor.
Submits official complaints of sexual harassment and abuse of authority to OIOS and Conduct and Discipline Unit.
Is immediately placed on a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) by her supervisors.
Is threatened on the same day by the Chief Mission Support Center during a dinner that her PIP would be “dropped” if she withdrew her complaint against her two supervisors.
Unbearable work environment and too much to bear and stay sane.
Goes on Certified Sick Leave.
Submits a request for protection against retaliation to the United Nations Ethics Office.
Is denied protection by the Ethics Office. We are in December 2021.
Extends her sick leave. Work environment is not safe to return to.
Submits a request to review the Ethics Office’s decision before the Alternate Chair of the Ethics Panel of the United Nations.
Is suddenly reassigned from her duties as Chief of the Unit by her supervisors and replaced by another staff member.
Requests management evaluation of the reassignment decision and reiterates her request for protection from retaliation from her supervisors.
Her first and second supervisors continue to supervise her.
The Alternate Chair of the Ethics Office ruled in her favor with a prima facie case of retaliation and recommended her protection from her supervisors. We are in April 2022.
Despite the Ethics Office prima facie finding, the Under-Secretary-General for Management Strategy, Policy, and Compliance accepted the MEU’s recommendation that her reassignment was lawful and did nothing to reverse the decision or to protect her.
Left to her own protection, she applies to and is selected for a temporary position as Logistics Officer at the P-4 level at the United Nations Regional Service Centre in Entebbe.
Her supervisor (the perpetrator) refuses to release her, stating that her role was crucial.
Together with the First Reporting Officer, they finalize her performance evaluation report. We are in May 2022.
She is still on Certified Sick Leave and too afraid to return to work.
Her contract is suddenly extended for one month only.
She writes back to the Ethics Office, alerting them of the contractual issue.
Two years and a half after she first complained about sexual harassment and abuse of authority against her supervisors, the Chief of HR finally suggested in July 2022 to offer her a placement in a different section with different reporting lines.
She returned to work in July 2022.
A year later, on 9 June 2023 and three years and a half after the Story started, Judgment UNDT/2023/048 Guimaraes was issued.
Let us read one excerpt…
The Tribunal noted
“… with concern that the Administration, notwithstanding such a serious accusation (in particular, that one of sexual harassment by Mr. John) and the zero-tolerance policy it follows in the matter, did nothing to protect the Applicant after her complaint, leaving her instead subjected to the same reporting line, which had at the top the Applicant’s SRO, that is the alleged sexual harasser of the Applicant.
Indeed, both the FRO and SRO, although accused by the Applicant, remained in their positions, and continue to manage the Applicant’s working relationship, assessing her ePAS, deciding to put her on a PIP, and finally deciding her reassignment.”
Let us read a second excerpt.
“The Tribunal stresses the abnormality of a situation where an officer accused of serious misconduct (like indubitably sexual harassment is) can continue exerting powers towards the complainant. While it can be admitted that the accused officer remains in office till the investigation confirm the accusation, from the moment he is aware of the accusations he is in a situation of conflict of interest which imposed on him the obligation of abstention, refraining from any administrative act which involves or can impact, even indirectly, the complainant.
Let us read a third excerpt.
“The Administration, who receives the complaint of sexual harassment, must immediately not only investigate the facts (or close the case, communicating the closure to the complainant), but in any case, pending the case, intervene to prevent the accused from exerting his managerial powers towards the complainant; this obligation is larger than that one of the accused person and starts from an earlier moment, operating even during the period the accused person is not aware of the complaint.
It is clear in the rules that the existence of a conflict of interest undermines the powers of a manager to take decisions.
In the case at hand, the Administration –which had the obligation to ensure that any known conflict of interest could have no room in the management of the work relationship- should have put a remedy to the situation and intervened since the moment the complaint for sexual harassment was filed by the complainant.”
What happened to the perpetrators who committed the sexual harassment and abuse?
Nothing.
What happened to the Administration that failed to protect the staff member and failed to provide the minimum duty of care?
Nothing.
What happened to the USG, who blindly followed MEU’s classic upholding decision?
Nothing.
What happened to the female staff member?
She went on sick leave, humiliated and threatened by a hostile work environment that affected her mental health and well-being. She was scared and vulnerable, had constant fatigue, had chronic headaches, insomnia, self-doubt with a pessimistic approach to her work and life, and was probably scarred for life …
Oh, and by the way, UNDT awarded her 3 months’ net salary at the P-3 level for all this anguish…and suffering...
