Invoking Article XIII of the Tribunal’s Statute, the Applicant seeks revision of DC (Preliminary Objection), Decision No. 525 [2015] with respect to the Tribunal’s judgment to uphold the validity of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) which the Applicant signed with the Bank on 3 September 2014.

The Applicant challenges the denial of her claim under the World Bank Group’s Workers’ Compensation Program.

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision not to hire her for the position of Program Assistant, level GC.

The Applicant challenges the 14 April 2016 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) and the imposition of disciplinary sanctions. The Applicant contends that the disciplinary sanctions were “extremely harsh” and significantly disproportionate to the act, which she admits she committed.

The Applicant challenges the failure by the Bank to register her short-term consultant (STC) contract for her G-4 visa with the U.S. State Department.

The Applicant challenges the 2015 Notice from Pension Administration, “applying the amendments to the SRP and Supplemental Staff Retirement Plan (“SSRP”) effective January 1, 2015 to [the Applicant], notifying her of her calculated individualized shortfall of $278,542.57, as calculated pursuant to those amendments, and informing her of options under those amendments for contributing the identified amount.”

The Applicant challenges the Bank’s decision to withdraw offers of Short-Term Consultant (STC) contracts for Fiscal Years (FY) 2015 and 2016.

The Applicant challenges his 2013 Overall Performance Evaluation (OPE), Salary Review Increase (SRI), and the decision to place him on an Opportunity to Improve Unsatisfactory Performance Plan (OTI).

The Applicant challenges the disciplinary decision of 16 February 2016, excluding him from any future employment and contractual opportunities with the World Bank Group (WBG) for one year, effective 1 July 2016.

The Applicant challenges the non-renewal of her contract and the Bank’s denial for expiration payment upon the expiration of her contract. The Bank has raised a preliminary objection to the admissibility of certain claims in this Application. 

The Applicant challenges the unauthorized disclosure of his sexual orientation and marital status by his spouse’s manager, Ms. A, and the decision of the Office of Ethics and Business Conduct (EBC) to dismiss his complaint against Ms. A regarding the unauthorized disclosure.

In this Application, the Applicant raised the following claims: “(i) the decision not to renew his Term appointment was an abuse of discretion; (ii) the Bank discriminated against him; (iii) he was not informed of the honest rationale behind the non-renewal of his appointment; and (iv) the Bank did not provide clear guidance with respect to the separation options available to him.”

The Applicant challenges: 1) the decision to declare her position redundant; 2) administrative decisions concerning her Fiscal Year (FY) 2015 Overall Performance Evaluation (OPE); and 3) management’s decision following the recommendations of the Peer Review Panel.

The Applicant challenges the following decisions: (i) the decision by the Office of Ethics and Business Conduct (EBC) not to reinvestigate her allegations of sexual harassment against a Senior Advisor; (ii) her non-selection for the Senior Knowledge Management Officer position; (iii) the Peer Review Services (PRS) Panel’s decision to dismiss some of her claims in Request for Review No. 195; (iv) the non-extension of her contract; (v) the failure of management to provide her interim protection; (vi) false revision of her personnel records and People Page profile on the Bank’s intranet; and (vii) the termination of her contract. In addition, she alleges certain procedural violations committed by EBC in its investigation of her allegations and by PRS in her Requests for Review Nos. 191, 195, and 217.

The Applicant challenges the decision to abolish his position under Staff Rule 7.01, paragraph 8.02(b).

The Applicants challenge the 20 May 2015 decision of the Vice President, Human Resources (HRVP) imposing disciplinary sanctions for disclosing to the Argentine press nonconfidential but non-public information about former World Bank Group Executive Director Guido Forcieri’s travel plans obtained from the World Bank Group’s travel management system. The Applicants claim protection under the World Bank’s Whistleblower Policy and contend, in the alternative, that the sanctions were disproportionate. The Applicants seek full rescission of the HRVP’s decision imposing disciplinary measures and compensation in the form of “full back pay for the five percent reduction in their salaries effective 22 May 2015, including recalculation of any annual salary increases or other benefits based on salary level, and additional compensation for the serious, needless, and ongoing danger of external retaliation” due to the Bank’s actions. 2 The Applicants request legal fees and costs in the amount of $39,762.75 for the first Applicant and $41,463.53 for the second Applicant.

The Applicant challenges the “[d]ecision of Ms. [A] to disclose Applicant’s sexual orientation and marital status” and the “[d]ecision of EBC to dismiss Applicant’s complaint against Ms. [A] for disclosing his marital status and sexual orientation.”

The Applicant challenges the following: (i) the non-renewal of his contract; (ii) the unauthorized disclosure of confidential personal information about him; (iii) harassment and discrimination based on his sexual orientation; (iv) retaliation for reporting his manager to the Office of Ethics and Business Conduct (EBC); (v) failure of senior management, Human Resources, and EBC to protect him; and (vi) the unlawful manipulation of his email account after the termination of his contract. The Applicant also argues that the EBC investigations into his complaints were procedurally improper and that the Vice President of Human Resources (HRVP) should have recused himself from being the decision maker in Ms. A’s case.

The Applicant challenges her 2014 Overall Performance Evaluation (OPE) and performance rating. The Applicant also seeks redress for (i) harassment and retaliation by Mr. A, her former Track Team Leader, and Mr. B, her Manager; (ii) the failure of the Office of Ethics and Business Conduct (EBC) to investigate her various misconduct complaints against Mr. A and Mr. B; and (iii) EBC’s abusive investigation and findings against the Applicant in a case filed by Mr. A.

The Applicant challenges the decision not to appoint him to the Level GG position to which he was selected.