The Applicant challenges (i) the decision not to extend her short-term disability (STD) benefits and (ii) the decision to deny her workers’ compensation claim.

The Applicant challenges “[t]he decision not to renew his term appointment beyond November 6, 2024,” “[t]he decision to assign him an SRI [Salary Review Increase rating] of 3 for FY24 [Fiscal Year 2024],” and “[t]he failure to update his FY24 Annual Review in the system with the revisions recommended by the Administrative Reviewer and accepted by [the] Regional Director.”

The Applicant challenges the non-renewal of his term appointment.

The Applicant challenges “[t]he December 2021 decision […] not to renew [her] contract, under the pretext of ‘workforce planning,’” and “[t]he May 2025 decision by WBG [World Bank Group] management to limit relief to 12 months’ net salary compensation despite PRS [Peer Review Services] confirmation of improper motivation and abuse of discretion.”

The Applicant challenges “[m]anagement’s refusal to permit [the Applicant] to pursue a DAIS [Developmental Assignment] opportunity he had secured with the CROMC [Chief Risk Officer Vice President, Market and Counterparty Risk Department].”

The Applicant contends that (i) his actions did not constitute misconduct; (ii) the sanctions imposed are grossly disproportionate under the totality of the circumstances; and (iii) the misconduct investigation was prejudicial.

The Applicant challenges (i) “the decision regarding [her] reassignment, as outlined in the official offer letter dated September 14, 2011,” which reassigned her to a Grade Level GD assignment; (ii) “[t]he failure to promote her following her supervisor’s recommendation” in her Fiscal Year 2014 (FY14) performance evaluation; (iii) “[t]he ongoing denial of proper classification and commensurate salary from 2013 until the end of her appointment”; and (iv) “[t]he non-renewal of her appointment in 2023 despite ongoing needs for her functions being filled by higher-graded staff.”

The Applicant claims that “(1) the Bank has wrongfully kept [the Applicant] at Grade GE for many years, denying her any prospect of promotion […]; (2) INT [Integrity Vice Presidency] has conducted wrongful job evaluations of [the Applicant’s] role, and thwarted her applications for higher-graded INT positions; and (3) the Bank has retaliated against [the Applicant].”

The Applicant challenges her ineligibility for mobility premium benefits by way of application of the “Change of Position” exemption in the Bank’s Mobility Framework and the resulting non-payment of mobility premium benefits.

The Applicant challenges “[p]oor performance and partial performance on [an] OTI [Opportunity to Improve Performance plan] as the grounds for termination of [her] contract.”

The Applicant claims that the Bank “deliberately failed to act on my March 8, 2023, request to appoint a suitable alternative reviewer to investigate retaliation. Despite repeated reminders that this inaction violates the International Financial Institutions Act (IFI Act), the [Bank] has willfully disregarded U.S. policy objectives enshrined in the Act.”

The Applicant contends that (i) the misconduct finding against him cannot be sustained; (ii) the misconduct investigation and the impugned disciplinary decision were marred by multiple serious violations of due process; and (iii) the sanctions imposed are significantly disproportionate to the findings of misconduct.

The Applicant challenges the non-confirmation of his term appointment.

The Applicant “request[s] the Tribunal to reverse the OTI [Opportunity to Improve Performance] decision and order [the Bank] to remove [the] OTI from [his] official HR [Human Resources] records.”

The Applicant challenges the 20 August 2024 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (ARP) denying her claim for workers’ compensation benefits.

The Applicant challenges the terms of her Mutually Agreed Early Out Separation: Retirement (MAS-EO) agreement and alleges discrimination at the time of her retirement and over the course of her employment with respect to annual salary raises, spot awards, and sick leave.

The Applicant challenges the determination by the Corporate Support Vice President, International Finance Corporation (COSVP) that he committed misconduct and the disciplinary sanctions imposed therein.

The Applicant contends that (i) his behavior did not amount to misconduct; (ii) the sanctions imposed are grossly disproportionate under the totality of the circumstances; and (iii) there were procedural irregularities in the disciplinary process.

The Applicant challenges “the disclosure of [his] personal sensitive information by the World Bank.”