This week, the United Nations Dispute Tribunal issued a baffling judgment to say the very least, Novo v. Secretary-General, UNDT/2025/098 (26 November 2025), in which it rescinded the decision of termination for a former UNICEF staff member who was charged with serious misconduct for sexual harassment (and unauthorized activities).
This judgment raises serious concerns about the UNDT’s understanding of power dynamics in the workplace and about the extent to which such rulings will discourage future reporting of sexual harassment in the UN.
The judgment itself is 71 pages long and refers to detailed witness examination, cross-examination, and OIOS interview transcripts. Despite sexually harassing three female staff/consultants (all of whom filed complaints) and despite corroborating witnesses, the judge chose to believe the supervisor’s version, using a copy-paste approach to dismiss all allegations of sexual harassment, save for the unauthorized outside activities.
The Tribunal established that in one incident the staff member approached the female supervisee at a gym while she was engaged in routine physical exercise and made remarks in Bosnian implying that she was instructed by her husband to work on her “booty” using colloquial language. The perpetrator explained that he was observing her form because he noticed some technical issues during her deadlift, and he mentioned that her husband might have advised her on her technique to make her booty bigger.
In weighing whether this constituted sexual harassment by a supervisor, the judgment unbelievably reads:
“The question before this Tribunal is whether the Applicant’s behavior, unprofessional staring at V03’s posterior and the statement about her husband’s instructions, constitutes harassment or sexual harassment. In the Tribunal’s view, the Applicant’s conduct must be evaluated in context. The act of staring appears to be a pattern of habitual, subconscious observation rather than any sexual gesture or act.”
The judge went on to justify the comments by stating that the act of staring at her booty might have been:
“reflecting an awkward attempt at social interaction rather than misconduct”
And:
“the Tribunal acknowledges V03’s feelings of discomfort but considers that the subjective offence alone does not establish harassment or sexual harassment; particularly when there is no objective evidence that the behavior was sexual or intimidating. Indeed, the Tribunal considers that, once more, the Applicant displayed unprofessional and intrusive behavior, but not one of a sexual nature.”
So for all UN staff exercising at the gym, the next time your supervisor stares directly at your backside while deadlifting and comments on your “booty” don’t get uncomfortable, because according to the UNDT, it’s just social interaction… with your backside..
In another disturbing episode, the supervisor gave a different staff member (a superviosee also) a copy of the book: “Sex and Lies: True stories of women’s intimate lives in the Arab world” by Leila Slimani claiming it was “relevant to her work.”
The book is about the sexual experiences of women in Morocco and the Arab world. And as The Guardian described it, Slimani “returns to north Africa to explore sex, pornography and hypocrisy.”
The supervisee testified that her work had nothing whatsoever to do with sexual narratives, Arab women’s intimate experiences, or Morocco. She explained that she did not challenge her supervisor at the time due to power dynamics being at the lowest rank, dependent on him for contract renewal and fearing that complaints would go unaddressed in the isolated Bihać duty station.
The judge correctly established the facts but once again dismissed the allegation, filtering it through his own selective perception of harassment. According to the judge, even though the supervisee found the gift deeply inappropriate, he adopted the supervisor’s absurd justification that the gift was an act of “educational sharing,” potentially useful to humanitarian work:
“whether the book is professionally relevant can be subjective, and in some humanitarian contexts materials concerning women’s intimate experiences or trafficking may bear on protection, gender-based violence, or cultural understanding relevant to child protection work.”
The judge then criticized the supervisee’s internal reaction by stating:
“V02’s assessment of the book’s inappropriateness was based on her perception of the contents of the book, which, in turn, was based on her interpretation of the title, back cover, and online summaries.”
And dismissed the claim by concluding:
“gifting of the book does not meet the objective threshold for harassment or sexual harassment. There is no evidence of sexual intent, no pattern of sexualized conduct tied to the gifting, and no demonstration that the act interfered with VO2’s work or created a hostile work environment.”
So, if your supervisor hands you a book titled “Sex and Lies” you are apparently expected to ignore the “Sex” part, trust his enlightened intellectual intentions, and focus on theoretical cultural anthropology. After all, if the UNDT judge can turn a blind eye, so can you.
Then, in three separate incidents involving two supervisees, the staff member commented to one woman that she preferred “strong muscular men” asked another, while walking behind her:
“How tall are you? You have a very nice height for a woman”,
and later at a bar in Bihać, leaned too close to her, invading her personal space, asking if she would like to “ride in an expensive car if driven by a handsome man, and telling her she was the type of woman used to men doing favors for her”.
And in all three incidents, the judge dismissed the allegations.
On the comment about interest in muscular men, the judge reasoned:
“the remark was a casual, somewhat awkward comment about V03’s personal preferences. The fact that V03 felt uncomfortable is acknowledged and is relevant. However, subjective discomfort alone does not establish harassment or sexual harassment.”
So next time your supervisor randomly offers his unsolicited psychoanalysis of your taste in male body types, maybe you should reply, “Thank you for your professional assessment.” Because apparently, commentary on your intimate personal preferences is part of your job.
And when your supervisor asks about your height and compliments you on it, while following behind you, do not mistake it for predatory interest. The UNDT judge insists:
“comment is addressed to physical stature only, and occurred in a social, informal context involving several colleagues”…
“unwelcome and unwise conduct … falls short of proving the requisite objective severity or sexual character.”
The extent to which this judge fails to grasp the nuances of sexual harassment as experienced by women is staggering. For the vast majority of women, sexual harassment is not confined to physical contact. It is anything that intrudes upon their bodily autonomy and personal dignity: the invasive stare, the unsolicited comment about one’s curves or “booty,” the remark about one’s taste in men, the book handed with a knowing smirk that centers sexuality as its theme. This is precisely how predators operate, not with overt groping, but through a steady drip of boundary violations and insinuations.
Why should my supervisor be commenting on my physical appearance?
Why should he be giving me a book titled “Sex and Lies”, a book which The Guardian characterized as “exploring sex, pornography and hypocrisy”?
Why should he be asking me if I prefer “strong muscular men”?
Why is he leaning in, crowding my space, speaking low and close, as if intimacy is assumed?
And the fundamental question:
Why is any of this taking place inside a UN workplace that claims to champion dignity, equality, and respect?
Many men in the UN derive perverse satisfaction from making women uncomfortable. They thrive on the microaggressions, the innuendos, the baiting comments that hover just below the disciplinary threshold. They get away with it precisely because of the ambiguity, the plausible deniability. And now, emboldened by judgments like this, they will feel even safer doing so.
These men indulge in a quiet vocation: testing how far they can intrude into the bodies, space, and psyche of the women they supervise knowing full well the power imbalance protects them. And instead of confronting this pattern, too many judges prefer to dissect each incident into sterile fragments, stripping away the lived experience of women and repackaging predatory behavior as “awkward social interaction” or “habitual staring.”
Well, here is the reality:
We are not concerned with whether he meant it sexually, poetically, or subconsciously.
We are concerned with whether a professional environment exists where women can work without being sexualized, analyzed, or targeted.
Women do not join the UN hoping their supervisor will inquire about their body shape or sexual preferences. They join believing that equality and respect are more than decorative slogans painted onto banners and mission statements.
But clearly, in the eyes of this UNDT judgment, it is all just “much ado about nothing.”
This reasoning also stands in direct contradiction with binding jurisprudence of the UN internal justice system itself. In Hallal UNDT/2011/046, para. 55, later affirmed by UNAT 2012-UNAT-207, the Tribunal held:
“in sexual harassment cases, credible oral victim testimony alone may be fully sufficient to support a finding of serious misconduct, without further corroboration being required”
And UNAT confirmed:
“The Dispute Tribunal did not err in law in giving full evidentiary weight to the complainant’s oral testimony absent documentary corroboration.”
The jurisprudence affirms that victim testimony is legally probative and sufficient to ground a finding of misconduct. By dismissing these women’s testimony because it did not include “objective evidence,” the judge was defying settled jurisprudence. A legal standard already affirmed at the appellate level.
This inconsistency between jurisprudential requirement and judicial practice demands scrutiny. For while the Tribunal applies an intent-based threshold in this case, the Organization simultaneously asserts a trauma-aware, victim-centred approach in its reporting to the GA. The UN itself reports to the General Assembly the following passage in the Secretary-General’s report (Report of the Secretary-General, “Special measures for protection from sexual exploitation and abuse,” A/79/789, 17 February 2025, para. 5).:
“For example, when the nine judges of the United Nations Dispute
Tribunal visited the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) in June 2024 as part of their induction into the United Nations administration of justice system, they were informed about measures in place to prevent and respond to sexual exploitation and abuse and had the opportunity to hear from the Special Coordinator
and the Victims’ Rights Advocate. The aim was to provide the judges with first-hand insights into the complexities and challenges associated with delivering protection from sexual exploitation and abuse on the ground, including the commitment to a
victim-centred approach. The Special Coordinator and the Victims’ Rights Advocate also raised concerns about the impact, especially on victims, of the protracted administrative and judicial decision-making.Following the mission, the judges’reflections informed discussions and recommendations at the Third Meeting of Investigatory Bodies on Protection from Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment
convened jointly by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee and the United Nations Evaluation Group in June 2024. The Special Coordinator and the Victims’ Rights Advocate are planning to conduct similar information sessions with the judges of the
United Nations Appeals Tribunal during a mission to the Central African Republic scheduled to take place in early 2025.”
This is a formal declaration to Member States that the UNDT judges have been exposed to and educated on the lived realities of sexual exploitation and abuse, particularly the effects on victims. The UN uses this text to demonstrate compliance with a “victim-centred approach” implying that judicial interpretation would be informed by awareness of trauma, power asymmetry, and vulnerability.
Yet in this UNICEF judgment, the judicial reasoning shows no application of that mandate. The judge did not adopt a victim-centered evidentiary lens. Instead, he treated the testimony of three women as insufficient because it lacked “objective” proof directly contradicting the Hallal standard, which recognizes that in sexual harassment cases, victim testimony can stand alone as probative evidence.
This illustrates a striking contradiction: before the GA, the UN asserts that judges have undergone sensitization on victim impact and reporting challenges. But in practice, the judge reverted to assessing the accused’s conduct through the lens of innocuous intent rather than evaluating its effect on the women. The “victim-centred approach” praised in GA reporting collapses under judicial reasoning that effectively places the burden of proof on victims to demonstrate not only harassment, but the perpetrator’s internal sexual intent.
What the UN presents to Member States as advancement in judicial awareness and responsiveness does not translate into adjudication. The legal framework that the UN claims to be strengthening remains selectively applied and when tested in real cases, defaults back to minimizing, reframing, and dismissing victim testimony.
A justice system that demands victims prove the psychology of their harasser is not victim-centred it is perpetrator-shielding.
And to all the women out there, I say: keep deadlifting.
