In IOM, a Chief of Mission has been sexually harassing a dozen female staff members, with the former Director General covering for him.
More than a dozen United Nations IOM female staff members filed independent complaints of sexual harassment against a current Chief of Mission.
The former Director General was formally apprised of these complaints, yet he took no action.
The PSEA focal point, entrusted with protecting victims and ensuring reporting of sexual misconduct, actively discouraged the complainants by stating
“If I had suffered sexual harassment by a senior staff member, I would not report it.”
The IOM Ombudsman did not fare any better, instead turning a blind eye.
The IOM sexual harasser continued in his functions as if nothing had happened.
Several staff members subsequently began experiencing retaliation in different forms.
When the Internal Office of Investigations finally decided to launch an investigation, many of the complainants chose to withdraw their complaints out of fear of being identified through their testimonies, even where anonymity was supposedly guaranteed.
The investigation was unfortunately protracted, to the detriment of many staff members, some of whom chose to leave the Organization altogether. At the same time, the IOM sexual harasser remains very much in place and without concern.
More worryingly, a 2022 External Evaluation of IOM’s Approach to Protection Against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse and Sexual Harassment noted in its final report a deeply troubling approach to dealing with sexual harassment at IOM with the report presenting an encouraging view that some forms of sexual harassment could be addressed through management action, or for informal mediation by the Office of Ombudsperson should the affected individual choose not to pursue a formal investigation.
This approach does not dissuade perpetrators from continuing predatory behavior. On the contrary, it has proven largely ineffective and extremely damaging. The dozens of women who complained in this case reached out to the former Director General, to the PSEA focal point, and to the Ombudsman. None of these actors deemed it necessary to stop the aberrant behavior.
When she assumed her functions as the new Director General of the International Organization for Migration on 1 October 2023, Amy Pope, the first woman to lead IOM in its history, stated in her speech:
“I pledge that IOM will put at its highest priority protecting the women and girls we serve.”
It is time to practice what you preach. The continued presence of a Chief of Mission accused by multiple female staff members of sexual harassment, after years of inaction, retaliation, and institutional failure, cannot be reconciled with it.
Amy Pope, the moment for statements has passed.
Accountability now requires immediate and decisive action.
This open letter was entrusted to me for publication by a group of women staff members working within the United Nations system.
It is formally addressed to Mr. Barham Salih, the newly appointed High Commissioner for UNHCR. The same concerns and supporting material were raised repeatedly over the past two years with his predecessor, Mr. Filippo Grandi, and were copied to the Secretary-General and senior UN leadership, without resulting action.
Written after the exhaustion of all internal mechanisms, the letter raises serious concerns about impunity, institutional silence, and failures of accountability within UNHCR, including the roles of oversight, ethics, and human resources functions.
I am sharing it in the interest of transparency, accountability, and informed public discussion.
*Disclaimer: This letter is published at the request of the authors. I am not a party to the matters raised.
In my latest article, I explore why organizations, in this case study- UNESCO (and those in positions of authority) so often dismiss requests they deem excessive, when in fact these are routine, legitimate needs of long-serving staff, often entangled in complex personal circumstances. In doing so, the institution exposes itself to avoidable disputes and unnecessary litigation, all of which could have been averted with a more thoughtful and humane approach.
In my experience, two principles have grounded my approach to leadership and decision-making, especially in difficult environments.
First, regardless of rank or years of service, every colleague has something valuable to offer. Even those perceived as “dead weight“, a term I categorically reject, often carry within them a particular strength, insight, or passion that has simply been overlooked or underused. The key lies in identifying that niche: the area where each person is uniquely competent. I’m not speaking here about technical skills (those can be taught, acquired, replaced). I mean the subtler, often underappreciated strengths: interpersonal fluency, team adaptability, resilience in solitary roles, the need for structured routine, or a talent for chaos management. Some are neurodivergent, some need visibility, others prefer to work behind the scenes. Some need the stability of repetition; others need to be pushed into uncharted territory to thrive.
Leadership, contrary to popular management mantras, is not about “teaching” people to be different versions of yourself. That’s where things unravel. Leaders who obsess over moulding their teams in their own image fall into the predictable trap of coercive control. It begins with good intentions: coaching, “capacity-building”, a push for “standards” and ends in abuse of authority. The unspoken logic: if someone doesn’t conform to my version of performance or behaviour, I have the right to marginalize them or push them out.
Second, understanding the personal context behind performance requires more than professionalism: it requires empathy. And yes, compassion. Because work, while central to identity, does not suspend a person’s lived reality. Over time, people evolve; their private lives evolve with them. Health issues, family demands, losses, transitions: all of these bleed into the workplace whether leadership chooses to acknowledge them or not.
Too many conflicts in the workplace stem from a refusal to understand this. Leaders who lack the emotional intelligence to accommodate the realities of life outside the office will inevitably generate resistance, frustration, and yes too often litigation.
In a recent series of striking International Labour Organization Administrative Tribunal (ILOAT) judgments involving UNESCO (Nos. 5052–5056, 140th session), a long-serving P-5 staff member, after nearly three decades of service, was abruptly placed in the mobility scheme. At the time, he was undergoing a divorce and had shared custody of his minor daughter, which legally and logistically made relocation impossible. He submitted a request for deferral, citing these personal circumstances and referencing provisions in the HR Manual that allowed for such exceptions. The request was rejected without meaningful consideration.
From there, things unfolded in a way that was entirely disproportionate, but all too familiar. His post was placed in the mobility pool, and he was reassigned to Brazzaville. When that posting fell through, due to lack of host government approval, he was sent to Kingston. At no point did he refuse outright to take up the assignments. He asked for time, a short and reasonable delay to resolve matters related to his child. This was consistent with established practice and far from an exceptional request.
Instead of responding with a degree of flexibility or basic empathy, the administration treated his request as a refusal to comply and moved straight into disciplinary mode. But there was nothing to investigate: no misconduct had actually taken place. He had submitted a legitimate request to defer relocation, based on personal and legal obligations. Rather than engage with the substance of that request, management bypassed internal oversight procedures entirely. The required preliminary review by the internal oversight division never took place. No effort was made to establish whether there was any factual basis for disciplinary action, because the facts were already known and undisputed. There was no misconduct, only a difference in approach: one side asking for time, the other insisting on immediate compliance. Yet this administrative disagreement was escalated into a charge of insubordination, without even the basic procedural safeguards that a disciplinary process requires.
The senior staff member was placed on special leave and given a clear ultimatum: withdraw his internal appeals or lose his job. When he refused to capitulate, the administration followed through and terminated his appointment for alleged insubordination. The ILOAT later reviewed the case and found the entire process fundamentally flawed. The administration had bypassed its own rules, ignored the requirement for an independent investigation, and failed to meet even the minimum procedural standards for disciplinary action. The dismissal was annulled. Beyond the procedural violations, the Tribunal went further and acknowledged what the staff member had been documenting for years: a pattern of decisions and actions that amounted to institutional harassment.
Which brings us back to the central question: what could have possibly propelled the Executive Director into this kind of aggressive, adversarial stance?
Why turn a routine deferral request into a disciplinary battle? Why not pause, reflect, and acknowledge that these were genuine personal circumstances requiring a proportionate, human response?
The staff member was not challenging authority; he was simply asking for time, yet the request was recast as defiance and rapidly escalated into a full-blown disciplinary conflict.
I find it hard to believe that people begin their careers this way.
Most do not.
It is often the system itself: the absence of consequences, the unchecked authority, the culture of protecting the institution at all costs that distorts behaviour over time. The UN’s structural tolerance for impunity rewards those who bulldoze their way through dissent, override discretion, and reframe perfectly reasonable staff concerns as insubordination. Some may well have climbed the ranks by doing just that. Others may have lost their bearings along the way. But the end result is the same.
Real leadership requires the ability to see others. Many lead, but very few actually see the people they lead.
They manage outputs, they push directives, they meet deadlines, but they stop engaging with the human beings carrying the weight of the organization.
That’s where leadership breaks down. Leadership doesn’t collapse because of flawed systems or poorly written policies pr performance metrics, rather it collapses when those in charge stop recognising the people in front of them.
Which brings us to the second scenario: when leaders fail to see the value of their staff simply because they occupy a lower grade. Locked into a rigid hierarchy and their own assumptions about who is worth listening to, they operate on the belief that no one at a junior level could possibly offer insights more relevant or more useful than their own. When that mindset takes hold, the outcome is rarely constructive.
Instead of engaging, these leaders take offence. They don’t take the time to assess what is being said or consider whether it has merit. Instead, they react defensively, as if their position has been challenged. The conversation ends there. What follows is not a reasoned assessment of competing views, but a retaliatory move against someone they consider to have overstepped. Once again, what we see is a pattern of egocentric leadership where self-perception overrides sound judgment. And once again, it fails.
ILOAT Judgments No. 5057 and No. 5058 (K. v. UNESCO) perfectly capture this leadership failure.
The case concerned a long-serving G-3 level security officer at UNESCO, employed since 2002. As part of his duties, he also served as a trainer for other security staff in the use of “intermediate defense equipment,” including batons, handcuffs, and pepper spray. These certifications were initially granted following a 2016 training by an external provider and were subject to renewal every year(or every three years in the case of trainers).
Between March 2018 and October 2019, the staff member sent several emails to his supervisors, flagging the failure to organize mandatory refresher trainings, which had resulted in the expiration of the required licenses for several security officers. This created operational uncertainty within the unit, with some staff discontinuing use of the equipment, and others continuing to carry it while unsure of their legal authority to do so.
Instead of addressing the issue substantively, the administration issued the staff member a downgraded performance review, accusing him of exhibiting inappropriate behaviour and poor communication. He then filed a complaint for retaliation, which UNESCO dismissed at the preliminary review stage. The Ethics Advisor concluded that his reporting of expired weapons certifications did not constitute a protected activity under the organization’s rules.
The ILOA Tribunal disagreed, and in strong terms. It found that the staff member’s reporting of safety and compliance concerns regarding defensive equipment did fall within the scope of protected activity, even if the underlying issue resulted from deliberate internal decisions or inaction. The Tribunal emphasized that:
“The fact that the alleged breach of rules was the result of a management decision does not, in itself, exclude the possibility that reporting such a breach constitutes protected activity.”
This directly contradicted the Ethics Advisor’s logic and revealed a fundamental misunderstanding of what constitutes whistleblowing or protected disclosures. The Tribunal held that the decision to dismiss the retaliation complaint was unlawful, and that the complainant had suffered moral harm as a result of the premature closure of his case without proper investigation.
The Tribunal also noted that UNESCO did not contest the factual basis of the staff member’s claims: the licenses had indeed expired, and the required trainings had not taken place. Yet, rather than engage with the substance of the concern: operational safety, legal risk, and staff uncertainty, the organization focused its efforts on discrediting the messenger.
This second case illustrates the same failure from a different angle: one rooted in hierarchy and ego. Here, the staff member wasn’t in a senior role. He was G-3 level, a security officer. But he knew his work, and he raised legitimate, operational concerns about the expiry of weapons certifications and the risks of having security personnel uncertain about their authority to use defensive gear. He flagged it calmly, through internal channels, over a sustained period. And yet, rather than acknowledge the seriousness of the issue, even the Tribunal called it “worrisome”, his supervisor took offence.
Because the feedback came from someone at a lower grade, it was treated not as input but as interference. The issue was never evaluated on its own terms and instead was buried under performance reviews and process language. His communications were suddenly labeled inappropriate, his tone scrutinized, and the focus shifted from the substance of what he was saying to the discomfort it caused his supervisor.
This is the kind of reaction that plays out when leadership becomes entangled in its own rank, title, and entitlement. And once again, it fails. What followed was a series of retaliatory actions under the cover of formal processes. The failure here was the inability to recognize that valid concerns can come from any level, and that leadership requires the ability to engage with what is being said, regardless of who says it.
In both cases, the outcome was the same: escalation, legal defeat, and reputational damage. All of it avoidable.
What’s difficult to reconcile is the gap between the values the UN and the wider humanitarian sector claim to uphold, and the behaviours that are tolerated, and at times rewarded, at senior levels. This is a non-profit environment. By definition, our work is meant to be grounded in higher principles: dignity, justice, integrity, inclusion. Unlike the private sector, where abuse and retaliation are often concealed behind NDAs and threats of blacklisting, our legitimacy depends on the consistent application of the very values we put on our posters, in mission statements, and in every new cycle of leadership and behavioral competency frameworks. But these values cannot just exist on paper or in strategy rollouts. They have to be seen in how we treat people every day.
So if you’re in a leadership role, the one question worth asking is this: do you actually see the people around you? And if you do, in what light?
Leadership begins with the ability to see the people in front of you. If you can’t do that, then what exactly are you leading?
⚠️ Trigger Warning: This post contains references to mental illness, psychiatric treatment, and the public disclosure of confidential medical records.
In what can only be described as a fundamental breach of the principles of due process, medical confidentiality, and dignity in adjudication, the United Nations Dispute and Appeals Tribunals (UNDT and UNAT) have entered dangerous territory: staff members who bring forward claims of moral harm are now being required to submit detailed medical evidence to support their case including psychiatric evaluations, therapy notes, and, in several instances, we have seen the records of the exact names of anti-depressants or anti-anxiety medications that staff members are taking. These records are not sealed and are quoted verbatim in publicly available judgments, often alongside the full names of the staff members concerned.
According to UNDT/UNAT the question of what constitutes moral injury justifying an award of compensation and what kind of evidence is sufficient or necessary to prove such injury was settled in Kallon 2017-UNAT-742:
“compensation may only be awarded for harm, supported by evidence. The mere fact of administrative wrongdoing will not necessarily lead to an award of compensation under Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute. The party alleging moral injury (or any harm for that matter) carries the burden to adduce sufficient evidence proving beyond a balance of probabilities the existence of factors causing harm to the victim’s personality rights or dignity, comprised of psychological, emotional, spiritual, reputational and analogous intangible or non- patrimonial incidents of personality.”
While in the past medical records were occasionally submitted to support claims of moral harm, they have now become the exclusive evidentiary standardfor awarding moral damages. The Tribunals have progressively adopted an evidentiary model that mirrors civil tort litigation, requiring formal psychiatric diagnoses and compelling the claimant to demonstrate a direct causal link between their mental health condition and the contested administrative decision.
In theory, this may appear aligned with principles of fairness and proportionality. In practice, it has translated into an invasive and burdensome standard of proof that disregards the psychological vulnerability of United Nations staff members many of whom are already navigating the aftermath of harassment, retaliation, abuse of authority, or abrupt termination.
The trend is particularly visible in recent UNDT jurisprudence, which has moved aggressively toward rejecting moral harm claims absent clinical documentation. Meanwhile, the Administration often contests even the most robust medical reports, challenging diagnoses, questioning causality, and in some cases, casting doubt on the credibility of the staff member’s treating physician. All of this, it must be said, for what is often a nominal and symbolic award of moral damages.
What is particularly alarming is that these medical records, ordinarily protected under doctor–patient privilege and recognized universally as confidential are neither submitted under seal nor reviewed ex parte. Instead, they are routinely cited verbatim in public judgments, including diagnostic labels, medication regimens, therapy histories, and treatment timelines, all tied explicitly to the staff member’s full name. The implications are profound: staff members are being forced to choose between their right to seek redress and the irreversible exposure of their most intimate medical history. This practice does not reflect a restorative approach to justice; rather, it institutionalizes procedural retraumatization within the framework of the UN’s internal justice system.
In 2022, I published a compendium documenting all moral damages awarded by the UN Dispute and Appeals Tribunals between 2010 and 2022, a first-of-its-kind resource mapping how the UN’s own judicial bodies acknowledged psychological harm inflicted on staff through unlawful administrative action. That body of research revealed a consistent pattern of decisions confirming moral injury, yet without any corresponding accountability for the perpetrators.
This month, I completed the updated edition of that compendium attached below, now covering the period from 2010 through June 2025 (15 years of moral damages in the UN). The research process revealed what can only be described as a disturbing evolution of jurisprudence. In reviewing the most recent judgments, I encountered not only a sharp reduction in the number of moral damage awards, but a series of rulings whose factual and evidentiary treatment of staff mental health conditions defies both legal logic and basic human decency.
Between 2023 and 2025, the trend has become unmistakable. Moral damages, already inconsistently awarded, have now been all but eliminated. In 2024, not a single judgment awarded compensation for moral damages, including in cases where staff succeeded on the merits. On paper, this decline might suggest an improvement in workplace conditions or a reduction in harmful decisions. It is nothing of the sort. The data reflects not progress but regression due to a judicial environment increasingly hostile to acknowledging trauma, and increasingly unwilling to grant redress for it.
Judicial Retrenchment and the Contestation of Psychological Harm
This marked decline cannot be attributed to an absence of harm, but rather to two interrelated developments within the internal justice system that have significantly narrowed the path to compensation for moral damages.
1. Invasive Evidentiary Requirements (Reinforced)
Beyond this shift in evidentiary standards, what is increasingly evident is the practical chilling effect it has imposed on staff. Faced with the prospect of submitting deeply personal psychiatric records, often including diagnostic notes, medication regimens, and therapy histories, many staff members are opting not to seek moral damages at all. This is particularly true for survivors of sexual harassment, whistleblowers, and those wrongfully terminated or unlawfully reassigned and retaliated against, for whom exposure of mental health records carries not only reputational risk but personal retraumatization.
Crucially, these records are not protected through sealed submissions or ex parte review. Instead, they are admitted into evidence and then cited verbatim in publicly accessible judgments. The disclosure of such sensitive information, without redaction and often alongside the staff member’s full name, violates the most basic norms of privacy and procedural dignity. The result is that those most in need of protection are left without remedy, silenced not by legal weakness but by an evidentiary process that demands they trade justice for exposure.
2. Systemic Refusal to Anonymize Judgments
Closely linked to the evidentiary burden is the UN Tribunals’ continued refusal to anonymize judgments even where the content concerns severe psychological harm, family trauma, or sensitive medical conditions. The identity of the staff member is routinely disclosed, regardless of whether they prevailed in their appeal or were vindicated after years of reputational damage.
While the General Assembly has endorsed the principle of transparency in the publication of judgments, this mandate was never intended to come at the cost of retraumatizing victims. In practice, the current approach disproportionately affects staff members, particularly those who win their cases, while shielding the individuals or systems responsible for the harm.
It is difficult to argue that publishing the names of victims serves any institutional purpose. On the contrary, it has become a deterrent. Staff who might otherwise challenge unlawful conduct are dissuaded from doing so for fear of public exposure, stigmatization, or digital permanence. At a minimum, those who prevail in their appeals should not be penalized by having their identities permanently associated with intimate psychiatric disclosures. Justice must protect, not expose.
The practice of anonymizing sensitive judicial decisions is not novel; it is well-established in other international tribunals such as the ILOAT and the European Court of Human Rights, particularly where reputational and psychological harm are at issue. The UN Tribunals must now align with these standards not only as a matter of consistency, but as a matter of basic decency.
A close review of recent jurisprudence reveals an increasingly adversarial posture by the Administration, namely, the Secretary-General’s legal apparatus, toward the recognition and compensation of moral harm, even in cases involving clear vulnerability, trauma, and institutional failure.
One particularly distressing example is UNDT/2024/003 Guezel appealed to UNAT 2025-UNAT-1531 a case involving a deceased UN staff member who died in service, leaving behind a semi-literate widow and an 11-year-old daughter in a remote village in Laos. The family, entirely dependent on the staff member, had minimal contact with the Organization and no functional knowledge of UN procedures or official languages. It took over two and a half years for the Administration to process their ABCC compensation claim. During this period, the widow received no meaningful communication, only vague assurances that the matter was under review.
The family brought a claim for compensation for the undue delay and sought moral damages for the psychological harm they endured. The child, who was the first to find her father’s lifeless body, was deemed too traumatized to testify. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found the facts sufficiently grave to award compensation. In response, the Administration appealed, arguing that the family’s moral harm was “not corroborated by reliable independent evidence”because no psychiatric reports were submitted.
In a rare and important intervention, the UNAT in Judgment 2025-UNAT-1531 rejected the Administration’s challenge. It affirmed the UNDT’s reliance on a handwritten letter submitted by the widow, which provided a restrained yet deeply affecting account of the family’s suffering. The Appeals Tribunal noted:
“Despite the personal sufferings it described, the letter was polite, objective and restrained in its tone… Its unchallenged content amply justified the award of moral damages, and we will not interfere with this award or its amount.”
Significantly, the UNAT went further, acknowledging that “the failure to seek medical attention for mental health was caused by cultural beliefs,” and explicitly recognized that factors such as limited education, environment, and social norms must inform the Tribunal’s assessment of evidence. It reaffirmed that moral harm may be corroborated through alternative forms of proof, not solely medical documentation.
These are the kinds of judgments the system urgently needs more of: balanced, context-sensitive, and grounded in a humane understanding of evidence. Yet regrettably, they remain the exception when they should be the norm. This approach to moral harm should not be a rare judicial act of empathy, it should be the default standard across all moral damages claims
In another case, UNDT/2025/021, a survivor of the 2020 Beirut Port explosion, whose PTSD diagnosis was not disputed in principle was subjected to intense evidentiary scrutiny by the UN’s legal team, which contested the extent of her trauma and succeeded in having her entire psychiatric history including medication details published in the judgment. The most intimate aspects of her mental health are now permanently accessible in the public domain.
These are not isolated cases. I am personally aware of a former UNHCR staff member who withdrew her complaint of sexual harassment when the UNDT refused to grant her anonymity, despite the sensitivity of the allegations. The cost of pursuing redress was simply too high.
In case after case, moral harm is treated as irrelevant, excluded from consideration regardless of the circumstances. The process discourages the vulnerable, retraumatizes survivors, and treats mental suffering as collateral to litigation. It is a system where the burden of proof has become a weapon, and justice, a deterrent.
Restoring the Duty of Care: Jurisprudential and Procedural Reforms
If the UN Tribunals are unwilling to revise their evidentiary threshold in the immediate term, they must, at a minimum, adopt protective procedural measures during a transition period.
One urgent reform is to allow medical records supporting claims of moral harm to be submitted ex parte. These documents, often containing the most intimate details of a staff member’s psychological state, should never be cited in open judgments, let alone quoted verbatim. These documents are not policy arguments. They are human evidence of institutional failure and must be treated with the corresponding degree of care and discretion.
Moreover, the Tribunals must recognize that psychological harm does not always manifest within the narrow timeframe of litigation. Many staff members develop PTSD, depression, or anxiety after the conclusion of proceedings, even after winning their cases. The notion that unlawful termination, reassignment, retaliation, or sexual harassment can occur without psychological consequence is not only clinically unsound: it is legally absurd.
If a staff member has succeeded in proving such violations, the presumption of resulting harm should follow naturally. Requiring further proof of what is self-evident reflects a detachment from lived reality and an insensitivity to the nature of trauma itself.
How can a staff member succeed in proving that they were unlawfully terminated, harassed, reassigned without justification, or subjected to retaliatory investigations only to be told that this is not, in itself, evidence of harm? The Tribunal’s approach effectively severs the link between the violation and its natural psychological consequences, as if institutional abuse can exist without emotional fallout.
Who among us could be summarily dismissed, publicly discredited, blacklisted from future employment, and dragged through years of litigation and emerge psychologically unscathed? The causal relationship between systemic injustice and mental distress is both medically recognized and self-evident.
Yet the Tribunal demands granular proof of that suffering:, diagnosis by diagnosis, pill by pill, as though trauma must be itemized to be believed.
It is time for the UN Tribunals to fundamentally change their approach. In cases involving unlawful termination, harassment (including sexual harassment), retaliation or abuse, where the staff member prevails, moral damages should be awarded automatically. The burden must not fall on the staff member to further justify that which the facts of the case already imply.
The Way Forward: Immediate Procedural Reforms
The Tribunal system must urgently align itself with international best practices, such as those adopted by the ILOAT and adopt procedural safeguards that center the dignity of staff. The following reforms are both feasible and overdue:
Anonymize all UNDT and UNAT judgments by default, particularly those involving medical harm, sexual harassment, or whistleblower retaliation. There is no defensible legal rationale for exposing the identity of a staff member who has already suffered harm. Transparency must not come at the expense of protection.
Permit the submission of medical records ex parte and shield such documents from publication. These records are not legal arguments; they are deeply personal evidence of suffering. Requiring staff to disclose them publicly compounds harm and deters rightful claims.
Acknowledge the delayed onset of moral harm. The current requirement that staff demonstrate contemporaneous trauma fails to account for the well-documented reality that mental health deterioration often occurs after the legal battle has ended. Any credible adjudicative system must reflect this understanding in its reasoning.
What is particularly troubling and fundamentally contradictory is how the jurisprudence of international administrative law has, for decades, clearly articulated the Organization’s duty of care toward its staff. From UNAdT Judgments No. 872, Hjelmqvist (1998) and No. 1273, Aidenbaum (2006), to ILOAT Judgment No. 402, In re Grasshoff (1980) and ADB Decision No. 5, Bares (1995), the principle has been consistent: employers especially international organizations bear a legal and moral obligation to safeguard the dignity, well-being, and mental health of their personnel.
Yet, despite this established body of jurisprudence, the UN Tribunals today systematically fail to apply the same logic when it comes to moral damages. Nowhere is this contradiction more visible than in the Tribunal’s refusal to presume harm in cases of serious rights violations, and its insistence on invasive evidentiary thresholds that effectively negate the very concept of duty of care.
In Judgments No. 1125, Mwangi (2003) and No. 1204, Durand (2005), the former UN Administrative Tribunal held that staff regulation 1.2(c) codifies a duty of protection with the force of a general principle of law. In Mwangi, the Tribunal was unequivocal:
“Even where such obligations are not expressly spelled out in the Regulations and Rules, general principles of law would impose such an obligation, as would normally be expected of every employer. The United Nations, as an exemplary employer, should be held to higher standards and the Respondent is therefore expected to treat staff members with the respect they deserve, including respect for their well-being.”
And yet, that respect is nowhere to be found in the current treatment of staff seeking redress for psychological harm. The UN speaks of duty of care in policy papers, mental health strategies, and inter-agency frameworks but in the courtroom, it retreats to technicalities, burdens of proof, and bureaucratic cruelty.
Until the UN Tribunals implement the most basic reforms from protecting medical confidentiality to restoring the presumption of harm and anonymizing victims by default, UN staff seeking justice will continue to face a brutal choice: suffer in silence, or disclose their most intimate psychiatric records to the system that failed them.
Submit Your Antidepressants to the Judge: UN Justice in 2025
🔺 Trigger Warning: This post contains references to the 2020 Beirut explosion, psychological trauma, and institutional neglect related to mental health. Please take care while reading.
The UN’s mental health strategy looks great in PowerPoint. But when a staff member survives one of the largest explosions in history and develops PTSD, the response is to deny remote work and push her toward termination.
How exactly is UN80 supposed to reflect the UN’s so-called “duty of care” when, even in the absence of budget cuts, political hurdles, or operational constraints, a UN Under-Secretary-General is allowed to deny a telecommuting request to a staff member injured in one of the most catastrophic explosions in modern history?
Judgment UNDT/2025/021, released two days ago, details how far ESCWA’s top leadership, including its Under Secretary-General (USG) and Director of Administration went to push out a staff member injured in the 4 August 2020 Beirut blast. That explosion, one of the largest non-nuclear blasts ever recorded, killed over 200 people and injured more than 7,000, including the Applicant.
The staff member, an ESCWA official, was one of those wounded. She was medically evacuated to Germany, later relocated to the United States, and began treatment for multiple physical injuries and chronic PTSD. Initially, ESCWA authorized telecommuting to allow her to recover. Then, without warning or justification, that support was abruptly withdrawn.
By mid-2023, she was being pressured to report not to Beirut, her original duty station but to Amman, a reassignment never agreed upon, and one that directly contradicted her treating physician’s medical advice. She requested a two-month extension of her telecommuting arrangement based on her ongoing treatment plan. ESCWA’s USG flatly denied the request. With no other option, she took two months of Special Leave Without Pay.
By November 2023, she was scheduled for a medical procedure in the U.S. Her doctor submitted formal documentation recommending she remain in the U.S. for surgery, follow-up, and psychiatric care. ESCWA ignored it. Instead, its Director of Administration proposed termination:
“I understand that there was a stage where you were considering an agreed termination package, which then took a different turn. This may be a good way to go in my view, if you were still open to this. Given that a return is unlikely, I would like to suggest that we start exploring the idea of an Agreed Termination Package.”
So the solution from senior UN management to a recovering staff member with work-related injuries and PTSD was simple: take a package and go away.
In February 2024, her physician once again reiterated the medical necessity of staying in the United States. ESCWA’s response?
Demand further “evidence” and challenge the judgment of a licensed treating physician. And again, the specter of termination was raised.
Let’s call it what it is: a coordinated campaign to pressure an injured staff member into quitting. First, ESCWA withdrew remote work without cause. Then they tried to force her into a duty station against medical advice. When she refused, they made her choose between her health and her job.
The inevitable happened. Her condition worsened.
Her physician’s medical report, issued 4 February 2024, reproduced extensively in the UNDT judgment, is explicit:
“Her anxiety and depressive symptoms have recently deteriorated due to persistent challenges to resume her work and/or secure a reasonable alternative position within the UN organization. As her physical, professional, psychological, and financial security are all now threatened, [the Applicant] is decompensating psychologically. She now struggles with her sleep, low energy, and lack of motivation, in addition to having panic attacks with increasing frequency. She is now requiring psychiatric medication for the management in her symptoms, which was not previously necessary.
Given her history of chronic PTSD, it is important to prioritize both her physical and psychological well-being and ongoing treatment. I have recommended against temporary assignments outside the United States, in order for her to continue with her established medical care and access to social supports. In addition, I would advise she not resume work in Lebanon specifically due the risks of being re-traumatization.
Considering [the Applicant] is trying to recover from a significant work-related injury, it is not clear to me as to why she is being forced to decide between continuing her medical care or her job and professional livelihood within the UN.
If she prioritizes her medical and psychological care, because she is being told she cannot work remotely, then she is placed in the position of resigning from her job. And yet, she is not being given a reason as to why she cannot work remotely.”
This is how it plays out, time and again: once a staff member shows signs of illness, especially psychological trauma, the system shifts into quiet expulsion mode. The tone hardens, medical evidence is challenged, and instead of support, they are treated as a liability.
What follows is a familiar sequence: isolate, discredit, pressure, remove. It’s a pattern the Organization repeats across cases, in direct contradiction to its own duty of care framework and the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of health status.
When will the UN understand that care cannot be conditional or even performative?
You don’t get to claim duty of care when it only applies to the well.
The Tribunal had no trouble characterizing ESCWA’s conduct: “a quintessential abuse of discretion.”
Bear in mind that the same USG at ESCWA has been the subject of multiple tribunal cases, formal complaints, and accusations of abuse of authority. Staff have won those cases at the UNDT and UNAT. The Secretary-General was fully informed. And what did he do? He renewed her contract last year.
The UN’s much-publicized “duty of care” and its glossy “mental health strategy” are public relations stunts, a smokescreen to hide the routine violations happening behind closed doors. The only mental health the UN protects is that of senior officials, whose positions remain untouched no matter how many staff they trample.
And let’s not kid ourselves: this decision has a geopolitical undertone. The Executive Secretary’s home country is not without influence, and when it comes to top appointments, power trumps accountability every time. The UN’s strategy on mental health, duty of care, and trauma recovery collapses the moment power is challenged. The very policies designed to support staff are weaponized against them. The façade holds as long as no one needs the protection those policies promise.
And when UN80 arrives with its structural overhaul, this is the blueprint. Efficiency will mean elimination. Restructuring will mean displacement. Psychological welfare won’t enter the equation.
So, to every staff member bracing for the wave of reforms under UN80, know this: structural reviews won’t prioritize your well-being. They will accelerate what’s already happening: an institutional purge devoid of empathy, fairness, or legality.
“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.
Three years ago today, I won my second and final appeal against the United Nations—a victory that, while significant, laid bare the depth of the UN’s failures in delivering real justice. As a former UN Chief of Operations, I dedicated over 20 years to upholding the values the United Nations claims to represent. But when I exposed unethical practices by senior officials, I faced systematic retaliation that shook my faith in the organization. My story sheds light on the UN’s deep-seated accountability issues, from manipulation by the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to the hollow promises of the UN’s mental health strategy. Despite winning multiple tribunal cases, I, like many others, was not reinstated—reflecting a system that too often protects itself rather than its people. Today, as the founder of Certioraris.com, I’m using my experience to support others who face similar challenges, advocating for true justice and reform within institutions that must live up to their ideals. This is a story of courage, resilience, and the urgent need for change within the UN—one that everyone committed to justice needs to read.
For over 20 years, I dedicated my life to the United Nations, working as the Chief of Operations in hardship duty stations and on critical start-up missions across the globe. My roles were multifaceted, often involving the launch of complex operations and initiatives that promoted gender parity and systemic reform within the UN. My career was a testament to integrity and perseverance, but it was also a path that led me to uncover deep-rooted corruption. Today, on the third anniversary of my successful appeal before the UN Appeals Tribunal (UNAT), I reflect on a journey that should have exemplified justice but instead exposed a UN system that prioritizes self-preservation over accountability.
Standing Up for Integrity and the Cost of Doing So My journey took a dark turn when I reported severe violations of UN regulations by senior officials at #UNRWA. From unethical promotions to blatant manipulation of recruitment processes and financial misconduct, I documented practices that contradicted the very principles the UN upholds. My position demanded vigilance and adherence to integrity, which meant challenging these breaches and holding all staff to the same standards. However, in taking a stand, I became a target of a systematic retaliation campaign led by the most senior male colleagues, including my own supervisor. Together, they fabricated accusations to tarnish my record, isolate me, and ultimately push me out. The United Nations Dispute Tribunal and Appeals Tribunal (UNDT and UNAT) later affirmed my claims, revealing that my termination was not due to any misconduct but rather an orchestrated attempt to silence me.
A Pattern of Success at the Tribunal—With No Real Justice
This was not the first time I had won a tribunal case. Throughout my career, I faced numerous attempts to derail my work, and each time, I fought back, securing victories in multiple tribunal cases with both the UNDT and the UNAT. But the true measure of justice is not merely a legal win; it’s in the actions taken afterward. Despite my victories, the UN’s response was shameful: ignore the rulings, refuse to reinstate me, and opt for payment in lieu.
Achieving justice within this complex system is nearly impossible for most UN staff. For most UN staff members, the odds of winning a tribunal case are almost insurmountable. My success came only because of my technical, in-depth knowledge of the rules and a relentless determination to see justice served. Without such insight, the average employee would face an uphill battle against a system designed to protect the institution rather than the individual.
The clause allowing payment in lieu of reinstatement is a perfect tool for the UN—a way to appease legal rulings without genuinely addressing the wrongs done to its staff. Since the UN’s justice system was reformed in 2010, not a single staff member who has won a case has been reinstated. This speaks volumes about the UN’s commitment to justice—a system that claims fairness yet systematically denies reinstatement to those who have been wronged.
A Victory in Name Only: Exposing Senior Officials’ Harassmentand Gender Discrimination One of my significant victories was an investigation that confirmed harassment, intimidation, gender discrimination, and bullying by a former Director of HR and a senior Director of Investigations at #UNRWA. A senior legal officer, complicit in their campaign, contributed to what can only be described as a coordinated “war” against me. Despite winning this investigation, these officials faced no repercussions. One was even permitted to leave with a substantial compensation package.
My experience reflects a troubling pattern within the UN, where women face disproportionate challenges in advancing and maintaining long-term careers. The judgments detail how senior male colleagues, including my supervisor, coordinated a campaign to fabricate accusations to discredit me. The harassment was so severe, with several men creating a hostile environment to isolate me and undermine my work. This coordinated action against a senior female official illuminates the deeply rooted obstacles women confront in the UN, especially when they challenge corruption and unethical practices. The organization’s failure to address these gender-based challenges weakens its commitment to equality, leaving talented women vulnerable to bullying and discrimination.
The then-Commissioner-General of #UNRWA disregarded my vindication entirely, allowing the perpetrators of my harassment to walk away unscathed while my career was dismantled. The irony was clear: I was ousted as a senior leader dedicated to transparency and reform, while those responsible for gross misconduct were protected.
The Unacceptable “Settlement” Offer: Bribery Disguised as a Settlement
Perhaps the most astonishing moment of my ordeal was a meeting with the former Commissioner-General of #UNRWA, a meeting that left me questioning every principle the UN claims to uphold. As he sat across from me, he held two things: a lucrative settlement offer and, in his other hand, an alleged letter of termination for misconduct. His offer was clear: resign quietly, take the money, a “good reference,” and sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement waiving my rights to submit any claim against him or his senior management members or else face immediate dismissal. In that moment, all the UN’s values and principles—transparency, integrity, justice—vanished.
If my actions had truly warranted termination, why was he offering me an exit with a “good reference”? Why was he asking me to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement if he was sure of his actions and had done nothing wrong? The only plausible answer was that he sought to buy my silence, attempting to use the offer to shield both himself and the organization from scrutiny. The scene was both shocking and surreal, as he attempted to wield the “Damocles sword” of termination over my head, coercing me to leave in exchange for financial compensation.
I made it clear to the former Commisioner-General that I would not accept this bribe to cover up his misconduct and those of his senior management. I know today that the Commissioner-General will never forget that meeting or the words I said to him. He knows that, too and he knows the truth. Later, I provided the tribunal with a verbatim record of our conversation—a document that reveals the lengths he was willing to go to silence me. His actions and statements affected me profoundly, eroding my faith not only in him but in the entire organization. He has never apologized for this betrayal, perhaps out of fear of my response if he were to reach out. At one point, I held high respect for him, but his actions in that meeting alone have made me question the ethical core of the UN itself.
OIOS: Oversight in Name, Complicity in Practice The role of the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) in my case was particularly troubling. OIOS, tasked with investigating misconduct, instead acted in concert with senior officials to facilitate my removal. The tribunal findings highlighted OIOS’s conflict of interest, a fact underscored by its blatant disregard for witness testimonies and crucial evidence that could have cleared my name. Rather than upholding justice, OIOS became an instrument of retaliation, amplifying the false allegations against me while ignoring the documented misconduct of those I had exposed. This misuse of investigative power not only damaged my career but also revealed a deeper flaw in the UN’s oversight mechanisms—a system that claims objectivity yet operates in service of those it should hold accountable.
The Secretary-General’s “Mental Health Strategy”: A Failed Promise The Secretary-General’s system-wide mental health strategy is often touted as evidence of the UN’s commitment to staff well-being. But my experience—and that of countless others—reveals a starkly different reality. This so-called strategy is, in essence, little more than rhetoric. Staff members who challenge corruption face prolonged harassment and isolation, with no meaningful support or protection. The UN’s mental health initiatives are cosmetic, lacking substance or genuine commitment. If the organization truly valued the mental well-being of its employees, it would address the root causes of stress and retaliation, rather than merely offering superficial solutions. A true commitment to mental health would create a culture where individuals feel safe and valued, not targeted for upholding ethical standards.
Certioraris.com: Advocating for the Silenced While my career at the UN ended prematurely, I have channeled my experience into a new mission: supporting others who find themselves ensnared in similar struggles. As the founder of Certioraris.com, I receive hundreds of messages daily, many from individuals reaching out anonymously, fearful of the consequences of speaking up. Through Certioraris, I offer resources, guidance, and advocacy for those trapped within institutional systems that punish integrity. My goal is to empower these individuals, giving them the tools to navigate and challenge the injustices they face. Certioraris has become a refuge for those who, like me, have witnessed the gap between the UN’s public ideals and its internal practices.
A Demand for Reform, Not Empty Promises
My story is not unique; it is one of many that underscores the urgent need for structural reform within the UN. The Secretary-General’s refusal to reinstate staff who have won tribunal cases, the misuse of OIOS investigations, and the failure of the Ethics Office to protect whistleblowers all point to a system designed to insulate itself from accountability.
The UN cannot continue to ignore its internal failures while claiming to champion justice and integrity on the world stage. Genuine reform requires dismantling the culture of impunity that protects senior officials and prioritizing accountability over self-preservation. Until these changes are enacted, the UN will continue to lose committed professionals who once believed in its mission.
Real justice demands action, not rhetoric, and the time for that action is now.
As the year draws to a close, people started to exchange end-of-year reflections, New Year’s resolutions, and heartfelt New Year greetings for 2024 across various social media platforms.
But one Palestinian journalist in Gaza Hind Khoudari, who had been reporting non stop from the Gaza Strip had a different end-of-year message:
She tweeted:
“I never thought I would be tweeting begging the world for sanitary products.
NEVER in my life thought I would be here.”
“Guys, I am serious bring in carefree and daily liners into Gaza. There has been no liners in Gaza for more than a month now.”
Uncomfortable.
Awkward.
Truth
That is the reality of women and young girls in Gaza.
A topic that is often overlooked and stigmatized. No one wants to talk about the consequences of Israel’s blockade on Gaza women and their menstruation.
A month ago, journalist Roudayna Raydan reported about the dire living conditions in overcrowded shelters and widespread displacement in the Gaza strip, that are forcing Gaza women to resort to unconventional measures to delay their menstrual cycle.
Women and girls in Gaza are turning to Norethisterone, a medication typically prescribed for severe menstrual pain, heavy bleeding, and endometriosis, that is now being used as a means of delaying menstruation.
In her article, Roudayna reports that:
“The dire circumstances coupled with trauma stemming from the conflict have a severe impact on the women and girls in Gaza including an increased likelihood of urinary tract infections, childbirth complications, and transmission of infections such as hepatitis B and thrush due to neglecting hand cleanliness as a part of product change practices.
The inadequate provision of hygiene supplies in Gaza exposes women and girls to diseases and infections while also undermining their dignity.”
In moments such as when Hind Khoudari poignantly poses questions towards global feminists on Twitter or when Roudayna Raydan pens a comprehensive article highlighting the gravity of the situation, one can’t help but wonder – where does UN Women stand amidst all this?
Well, if you must ask, besides having a grandiose campaign to end the menstruation stigma around the world, they are currently busy investigating and possibly preparing to fire a dedicated senior UNWomen staffer, Sarah Douglas, who has been tweeting in support of Palestinians and against the Israeli genocide since the start of the Gaza war.
One may ask why?
An Israeli blog launched a campaign and a petition demanding that Sarah Douglas be fired and lobbied with two American senators to fire her, calling her a “terrorist sympathizer”. Thus the Israeli propaganda machine unleashed its wrath on her.
Mr. Secretary-General,
UNWomen Chief, Ms. Sima Bahous,
How can you uphold the dignity of women in Gaza when you’re incapable of doing the same for your own staff at the United Nations?
When you are incapable of protecting your own UN staff?
When all you do is succumb to the Israeli disinformation, propaganda, and hate speech campaigns?
When the wave of misrepresentation and deceitful narratives against Sarah Douglas is essentially because she is married to a Palestinian individual?
UN Women:
Do you want to end the stigma: could you start by protecting your own staff.
#UNWomen
It’s time align your actions to your declarations.
Following my recent review of 12-year moral damages at the UNDT, I am sharing my second 12-year review of moral damages at the ILOAT.
Apart from the fact that words such as stress, harassment, institutional harassment, harm to Dignitas, humiliation, suffering, moral injury, severe distress, and retaliation are common denominators for the two lists, one element stands out:
Between 2009 and 2022, the ILO Administrative Tribunal issued 1809 judgments. The Tribunal ordered compensation for moral damages in 504 cases. The percentage of staff who obtained moral damages at the ILOAT was 30%. The total amount disbursed for moral damages is 8,489,800 USD.
During the same period, the UNDT issued 2368 judgments, of which 140 obtained moral damages. The UNDT percentage of moral damages awarded to staff stands at 5.91%. The total approximate amount disbursed was 2,177,000 USD.
The UNDT is quick to dismiss any request for moral damages unless you file dozens of confidential reports testifying to your delicate mental health, ironically rendering your mental health even more fragile and on a therapy-resistant mode.
What, then, is the point of moral damages, we ask?
I found the perfect answer quoting Mr. Yves Renouf, Legal Counsel for the Administration at the World Trade Organization:
“When an international official goes to court, he or she has already made one major step towards removing himself physically or mentally from the organisation for which he or she works. I’m talking for instance about the potential discomfort this official may feel when working with or simply seeing, even occasionally, colleagues whose deeds he/she described in the most unpleasant and sometimes colourful way during the appeal. Someone who has gone through the process of litigating against his/her employer actually changes, and I witnessed it on a number of occasions.
A disgruntled complainant may experience a lasting sentiment of injustice, become withdrawn, lose interest or pride in his/her work or experience difficulties in dealing effectively with colleagues.
Financial compensation has been, since Saxon and Frankish laws, a conventional way to make up for a situation that cannot be mended (such as the loss of a limb).
However, society has evolved since the 16th century and the situation of a staff member in a 21st century international organisation is a complex mix of law, personal interaction and psychology.
The situation where the complainant has been – so to speak – “eating, drinking and breathing” his/her dispute for years is the most psychologically complex. “
Indeed, no amount of money will ever undo the emotional and psychological damage and the permanent scarring inflicted on the staff members.
There can be no justice without holding senior staff personally accountable for their unlawful acts and decisions.
Under Article 10(5)(b) of the UNDT Statute and Article 9 (1) (b) of the UNAT Statute, the Tribunals can order what we know in the common law system as compensation for “non-pecuniary loss” or what we recognize in the UN as compensation for “moral damages.” Moral damages are distinct from in-lieu compensation.
Moral Damages compensate the Applicant for various causes such as mental and physical suffering, depression and anxiety, mental anguish, loss of reputation, humiliation…
In Judgment UNDT/2015/053, the Tribunal recognized that
“moral damages are not solely a question about money but a warning in the field of employment law to employers on how to treat people.”
Now, when the Tribunal establishes an unlawful decision and vindicates a staff member, one would think that the staff is automatically entitled to compensation for Moral Damages.
Think again.
Before 2014, staff members provided their testimonies directly to the Tribunal, describing at length their suffering. The Tribunal, satisfied with the individual testimonies, proceeded to award compensation for moral damages.
In 2014, the Secretary-General proposed to the GA, and the GA approved significant amendments to the UNDT and the UNAT statutes. The subtle but significant changes introduced the expression “supported by evidence” after “compensation for harm” in both Statutes.
But what does this mean for the mentally tortured staff, who not only found themselves without a job, perhaps also with a torn-apart family but also unable to regain their mental strength to secure financial independence again?
In short, since 2014, a staff member’s testimony alone is no longer considered sufficient evidence of harm, warranting compensation for moral damages. The staff members are now required to provide medical, psychological, and even psychiatric reports to establish the direct causal link between the harm, stress, or anxiety caused to them and the breach of their substantive or procedural rights.
There goes another layer of humiliation, invasion of privacy, traumatization, amplified anxiety…you name it. The reference to the staff member’s name and the various psychological problems they’re suffering from is also explicitly mentioned in the judgments, which are public documents.
How can this scenario possibly contribute, in any way, to restoring the mental health of these staff and the damage already inflicted upon them?
To add insult to injury, the UNDT/UNAT compensation for moral damages are paltry sums compared to what the ILO Tribunal awards to staff falling under their jurisdiction.
If the Secretary-General is genuinely concerned with the mental health and well-being of the staff, perhaps he can start by making concrete proposals to amend the UNDT/UNAT statute and revert to the former policy, demonstrating a more compassionate and caring stance instead of the current one which only contributes to exacerbating the status of the staff members well-being and mental health issues.
