The Applicant challenges the decision of the Pension Benefits Administration Committee (PBAC) to deny her request for surviving spouse benefits under the Staff Retirement Plan (SRP) in respect of the late Mr. A, a retired Bank staff member.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to extend her term appointment.

Withdrawal.

Withdrawal.

Withdrawal.

The Applicant challenges, inter alia, (i) the Bank’s failure to implement its agreement to pay the Applicant in U.S. dollars (USD) in a timely manner; (ii) the placement of the Applicant on Short-Term Disability (STD); (iii) the non-confirmation of the Applicant’s employment and the extension of her probationary period; (iv) the alleged mismanagement of the Applicant’s career resulting in her constructive discharge; and (v) the decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (ARP) to deny the Applicant’s application for workers’ compensation.

The Applicant challenges (i) her Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) performance evaluation; (ii) her FY18 performance rating and the decision that she failed the Opportunity to Improve Unsatisfactory Performance (OTI) plan; and (iii) her “indefinite access bar to all WBG [World Bank Group] premises.”

The Applicant is challenging (i) “the improper termination of her contract as a retaliatory measure”; (ii) the denial of her due process rights as a result of not being provided “the real reasons” for the termination of her contract; (iii) the decision “not to renew her contract for a 3–5 year term”; and (iv) “abuse of power and authority […] by failing to address the Applicant’s many complaints of ongoing harassment […] and failing to protect her from such behaviors.”

The Applicant is challenging the 29 January 2020 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (ARP) denying her claim for workers’ compensation. The Bank Group filed preliminary objections to the Application on 7 August 2020. This judgment addresses the Bank Group’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant challenges “the process for the selection of the person to lead the Coordination Unit, his non-selection to lead the Coordination Unit, as well as his demotion and removal from leadership.” On 27 May 2020, the IFC submitted a preliminary objection challenging the admissibility of some of the Applicant’s claims. This judgment addresses the IFC’s preliminary objection.

The Applicant challenges the decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) that he committed misconduct and asserts that the disciplinary sanctions imposed on him are barred by the statute of limitations in Staff Rule 8.01, paragraph 3.03. The Applicant also asserts that the investigation of the Integrity Vice Presidency (INT) was procedurally flawed and violated his due process rights.

The Applicant challenges (i) the IFC’s decision not to renew the Applicant’s appointment beyond 28 February 2019 in contravention of “the promised two-year contract extension, relocation, and continuation of Localization Plus benefits”; and (ii) the IFC’s unfair treatment of the Applicant regarding the handling of his appointment extension and relocation.

The Applicant challenges (i) the decision to deny him access to Bank premises without first conducting a “business needs assessment”; (ii) the release of “Strictly Confidential HR [Human Resources] information to junior and mid-level staff within the Bank, and subsequently to [the Applicant’s] then-employer”; and (iii) the due process violations resulting from the investigation into the disclosure of his “Strictly Confidential HR information.”

The Applicant is challenging the 17 December 2019 decision of the Workers’ Compensation Administrative Review Panel (ARP) denying his claim for workers’ compensation. The Bank filed preliminary objections to the Application. This judgment addresses the Bank’s preliminary objections.

The Applicant requests “review of the pleas and evidence previously submitted to the Vice President [of Human Resources (HRVP)] through the INT [Integrity Vice Presidency]” and challenges the imposition of disciplinary sanctions by which she would (i) be ineligible for “future Bank Group employment as a staff member, contractor, or employee of a contractor;” (ii) have hiring and access restrictions implemented; and (iii) have a written censure placed in her personnel file.

The Applicant is challenging (i) the non-renewal of her contract which ended on 31 December 2017; (ii) the breach of promise of continuing employment which was to begin on 1 January 2018; and (iii) the breach of the Mediation Agreement.

The Applicant is challenging the Bank’s decision not to confirm her appointment, on the basis that the non-confirmation decision was both substantively and procedurally flawed.

The Applicant is challenging (i) the Bank’s failure to provide her with medical support or information; (ii) the Bank’s failure to provide the Applicant with a reasonable work accommodation to a non-tropical area; (iii) the non-confirmation of the Applicant’s employment and the extension of her probationary period; (iv) the Bank’s failure to implement its agreement to pay the Applicant in U.S. dollars (USD) in a timely manner; (v) the Bank’s failure to make certain payments to the Applicant, including her salary, her Scarce Skills Premium (SSP), the Special Compensation Measure (SCM), benefits, and her resettlement costs at the time of the termination of her appointment; (vi) mismanagement of the Applicant’s career; (vii) “[u]nfair and discriminatory treatment, resulting in constructive discharge”; and (viii) the denial of the Applicant’s workers’ compensation benefits. 

The Applicant challenges her Fiscal Year 2018 (FY18) Annual Review, her performance rating, and the restriction placed on her access to World Bank Group premises. On 30 September 2019, the Bank submitted a preliminary objection to the admissibility of the Applicant’s access restriction claim. According to the Bank, the Applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies in a timely manner. 

The Applicant challenges (i) his Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Annual Review; (ii) his FY2017 performance rating of 2; (iii) the decision not to shortlist him for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929; (iv) the decision not to select him for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929; and (v) the refusal to provide feedback on the reasons why he was not shortlisted for the Financial Officer position, Job # 170929.