“I am not feeling better, not at all. I have high blood pressure and panic attacks, one happened after I saw your message yesterday. I am not sure whether you are aware, but I have long-standing [depression], and recently my doctor doubled my medication because of the nervous breakdown. Nevertheless, even being on sick leave, I worked all the previous week, and today the whole working day…”
In a truly inclusive workplace, this email alone should have triggered a profound sense of duty of care from the staff member’s supervisor. It should have prompted the provision of every possible accommodation to support her recovery. Instead, what the UN did is unforgivable.
Case 1: Aggravating Depression to Disability
A former Human Resources Manager with UNICEF at the P-4 level in Nairobi, Kenya, experienced anxiety, panic attacks, and high blood pressure following a meeting with her supervisor. She was placed on certified sick leave. However, during her leave, her supervisor demanded she complete her performance evaluation report (PER) with a one-day deadline. Despite notifying her supervisor of her poor health, she returned to work, where another meeting caused a nervous breakdown. Her doctor concluded that work-related stress had severely exacerbated her condition.
Seeking justice, she filed a claim with the Advisory Board on Compensation Claims (ABCC) for compensation for service-incurred illness. Rather than acknowledging its duty of care, the UN, including the ABCC, actively opposed her claim, employing every tactic to undermine it.
Although the UN claims to set exemplary standards for employers, it ignored its own duty to protect its staff’s well-being. Despite being aware of her mental health condition, the organization delayed her ABCC claim under Appendix D for 22 months. This inaction further worsened her mental health.
In the judgment Gusarova v. Secretary-General UNDT/2023/046, the Tribunal highlighted this delay, stating:
“In sum, it took 22 months for the Administration to assess if the Applicant’s pathology was related to the work environment… [T]he ABCC unduly delayed the consideration of the Applicant’s claim for compensation, notwithstanding that the delay could aggravate the moral harm suffered.”
The Tribunal further emphasized:
“Duty of care requires the employer to intervene promptly also to assess if a claim may be accepted or not within Appendix D, notably when this delay may impact on the health of the staff member, aggravating their psychological harm.”
Gusarova’ s struggle to receive acknowledgment of her condition and fair treatment underscores the UN’s disregard for mental health as a legitimate aspect of workplace inclusion.
Inclusion or Illusion? Unpacking the UN’s Diversity Dilemma
The United Nations champions the ideals of diversity and inclusion, presenting itself as a bastion of equity and empathy. Yet, beneath this polished narrative lies a troubling hypocrisy: the failure to embrace and support neurodivergent staff members who face unique challenges due to their mental health or neurological conditions.
When people think of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the conversation often defaults to visible identifiers like race, religion, or gender. While these are critical, an equally important yet often overlooked component of DEI is discrimination based on neurodivergence, mental health, and personality traits.
These hidden forms of exclusion carry profound human costs. This systemic failure is not abstract; it has real human costs. In addition to the Gusarova case, two more stories illustrate the UN’s failure to uphold its own ideals of inclusion
Case 2: Surviving Brain Tumors, Facing Hostility
A former UNHCR G5 national staff underwent two brain surgeries to remove a life-threatening tumor. After returning to work, he exhibited emotional and behavioral changes, including mood swings—understandable given his ordeal. Instead of supporting him, the organization investigated him, worsening his mental health status, and ultimately terminated him. In what inclusive organization, let alone one like the UN, is this allowed?
The case revolved around whether the Inspector General’s Office (IGO) at UNHCR had a duty to investigate the medical context of his behavior. In Judgment UNDT/2022/132 Applicant v. SG of the UN , the Tribunal documented his struggles:
“[The Applicant] was diagnosed with a serious brain tumor in March 2018 and underwent two brain surgeries on 12 March 2018 and 9 April 2018. He suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and adjustment disorder, with symptoms including mood swings, irritation, and problematic control of anger. In particular, according to the psychiatric note, the Applicant was referred for further treatment in the summer of 2018 due to “mood swings, irritation and problematic control of anger.
The psychiatric note on record suggests that the Applicant’s medical condition could have caused problems in social or work settings including aggression and loss of social inhibition “before and during the operation” due to the physical and psychological trauma he went through and that “[t]he operation itself might also have some psychological consequences”.
Despite clear evidence that his medical condition caused behavioral challenges, the UN sanctioned him for those very symptoms, including his post-brain surgery PTSD. In his appeal, the staff member questioned the UN’s treatment of him in a poignant statement:
“[I]t really saddens me at this point and shows how some colleagues may also fail to act inclusive towards a colleague who had suffered a deadly brain disease and survived. This seems to form a big basis of hypocrisy for some colleagues to me. While they claim to work for people of concern, they tend to forget to include the ones at home for whatever motives they might have. … What would a person do when they start work only 8 months after they were operated in their brain two times? Of course, this person would have ventilations, mood swings, frustrations of a kind, etc. Yet, these were not targeting to anyone specifically….”
I’ve been recovering from a brain surgery that I had two times in 2018. And what I’m doing is trying to recover, focus on myself. And I do not think that I have been using curse words … Because I was going through a recovery process, and that’s why I am not recalling if I have used any cursing words, or I increased my voice at all … In fact, I was the silent – I mean, what I wanted to say, that I was very silent, I was very introverted, I was putting my music headset, and I’m sitting in front of my desk and trying to do my work. That’s why I don’t think that I’ve used any cursing words or increased my voice. “
The Tribunal condemned the UN’s failure, stating:
“the failure to consider the Applicant’s mental health issues throughout the investigation and disciplinary proceedings seems to reveal a dereliction of the duty of care towards the Applicant as a staff member of the Organization, because his mental health condition was not properly considered before deciding on the termination of his service as the sanction to be applied to him.”
Recalling Judgment Ouriques 2017-UNAT-745 and Judge Halfeld’s Dissenting Opinion, para. 6) the Judge reminded everyone that
“the Organization has a duty of care towards its staff members. This duty of care required the Administration … to inquire further into the staff member’s mental health once it was on notice of its possible relevance prior to concluding the disciplinary investigation and to making a final determination vis-a-vis the staff members’ disciplinary sanction. It is not good practice to separate a staff member suffering from a mental health condition without first fully discharging its duty of care”
Although he won the appeal, the staff member was never reinstated.
Case 3: Quiet Quashed: How the UN Weaponized Introversion Against a High Performer
An introverted but high-performing staff member at UNHQ faced relentless harassment because her supervisor deemed her reserved nature a flaw. Despite consistent excellence in her performance evaluations, her supervisor pressured her to change her personality, ultimately including disparaging comments about her “introverted character” in her appraisal.
This psychological attack escalated into post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and she is now pursuing disability benefits due to permanent mental health impairment.
Since when, we ask, are supervisors allowed to weaponize introversion or neurodivergent traits to downgrade performance evaluations? Is this what inclusion and diversity in the UN are truly about?
Redefining Inclusion: Why Neurodivergence Deserves a Seat at the Table
These cases reveal an organizational culture where diversity is celebrated only when convenient. The UN’s Strategy on Mental Health promises a supportive environment for staff, yet it remains an empty gesture for many. How can an organization profess to support mental health when staff who exhibit neurodivergent traits or struggle with mental health challenges are sidelined, harassed, or punished?
Neurodivergence encompasses a broad spectrum of neurological differences, including autism, ADHD, dyslexia, bipolar disorder, and anxiety disorders. These are not “deficiencies” or “flaws” but rather variations in how individuals perceive, process, and interact with the world. Neurodivergent individuals bring unique perspectives, innovative problem-solving abilities, and critical skills that can enhance any workplace. Respecting neurodivergence means fostering an environment where differences are not just tolerated but celebrated as essential to collective success.
Supervisors and colleagues alike must begin to understand that staff members have the right to say, “I’m not feeling well,” or, “I don’t feel comfortable answering this question,” without fear of judgment or retaliation. Staff should feel safe expressing vulnerability, recognizing that needing support is not a failure—it’s an essential aspect of being human. Anxiety attacks, for example, are not signs of weak leadership; they are signals that an individual is overwhelmed and needs assistance.
The UN and its leadership, including the Secretary-General, have repeatedly pledged to provide this support. It is time to honor those commitments in practice, not just in policy. Supervisors must be trained to respond to such moments with empathy and understanding, creating a workplace culture where staff feel empowered to seek help without the stigma of being perceived as inadequate.
If the UN truly seeks to embody its principles of inclusion and equity, it must do better. It must move beyond empty rhetoric and create tangible, lasting change in how it addresses neurodivergence and mental health challenges in the workplace.
Your Story Matters: Let’s Redefine Inclusion Together
These stories matter because they reflect a deeper systemic issue. If you’ve experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. Let’s demand a workplace that respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible
These stories matter because they reveal a deeper systemic issue that affects not just individuals but the very integrity of the workplace. If you have experienced or witnessed similar treatment, your voice is vital. By sharing your story, you can help shed light on the hidden challenges faced by so many and push for meaningful change.
Let’s come together to demand a workplace that truly respects and supports all forms of diversity—including the invisible. Together, we can advocate for a more inclusive and compassionate environment that honors the UN’s commitment to equity and humanity.
