The Legal Wild West in Geneva? Whistleblower Case Highlights Apparent Judicial and Institutional Failings

The case of an International School of Geneva whistleblower has brought to light troubling practices within Geneva’s judiciary, raising serious concerns about judicial accountability, conflicts of interest, and the misuse of medical narratives to undermine whistleblower protections. The whistleblower, who reported serious allegations of institutional misconduct, has faced retaliatory actions, including a forced psychiatric evaluation and the use of unqualified testimony in court to dismiss her claims. She claims to have been subject to a dehumanising ongoing sham SLAPP process, riddled with procedural faults which are outlined in a revised 65 page appeal. One heading is PASCAL EMERY.

Judicial Reliance on Unqualified Testimony

In a verdict issued by Judge Sabina Mascotto, the Tribunal de Police court upheld convictions against the whistleblower by relying on a so-called "medical opinion" from Pascal Emery, a figure with no medical qualifications. Emery described the whistleblower's behavior as "medical pathology" in a letter dated March 31, 2015, without ever meeting her or possessing the expertise to make such an assertion. His letter was to exonerate the then Director-General, Vicky Tuck, of allegations of at least concealing documentary evidence during a formal grievance process. The evidence, emailed to Tuck, that management admitted written responsibility for an allegedly dehumanising and false allegation process, should have been subjected to a Board panel review, but Emery unilaterally assessed complaints about Tuck at Tuck's behest, as evidenced by his letter.

Judge Mascotto referenced his opinion as evidence, writing that On March 31, 2015, Pascal Emery found that the HR managers and all those who had handled the case had done so correctly and indicated that the whistleblower's behavior fell within the scope of 'medical pathology.

Judge Mascotto fails to mention the whistleblower's testimony and evidence that those handling the case were apparently those who admitted to defaming the whistleblower after she had raised concerns about alleged failures in duty of care which included the treatment of two former colleagues.

This reliance on unqualified medical testimony by a judge raises profound concerns about judicial diligence and procedural fairness, as it deprived the whistleblower of the opportunity to challenge these baseless claims effectively.

Forced Psychiatric Evaluation and Alleged Corruption

Another troubling aspect of the case is the forced psychiatric evaluation of the whistleblower by Dr. Marc Séchaud on March 4th 2015. It has apparently been confirmed that Séchaud has since been subject to a formal warning by the Vaud Cantonal Physician. The evaluation was conducted under questionable circumstances, including the unauthorized presence of Michael W. Birchard, a Canadian businessman, during the assessment.

Shortly after this evaluation, Emery produced his own "medical diagnosis," which was apparently used to obscure apparent violations of Swiss Penal Code Article 254 by management as well as her alleged harassment after she raised concerns about Tuck.

Coordinated Retaliation and Systemic Failures

The case also highlights a broader pattern of retaliation against whistleblowers. During a 2016 conciliation hearing at the Prud’hommes, Ecolint’s legal representative, Françoise Markarian, reinforced the narrative of the whistleblower’s alleged medical pathology, echoing Emery’s terminology. The report of Sechaud was then referred to by Markarian, since it had been shared with the school - without authorisation - by a lawyer. This appears to reflect a coordinated effort to discredit the whistleblower and undermine her complaints, which she contends continues.

Parallels to Another Whistleblower Case

This case is not an isolated incident. In the 2021 employment tribunal judgment (JTPH/439/2021), another whistleblower apparently alleged faced systemic failures within Ecolint and Emery is named in the verdict. The court found that he had been unfairly dismissed and that Ecolint had failed to comply with child protection policies.

Questions are being asked about why Tuck, Emery etc. didn't refer this case, evidenced by whatsapp messages between a teaching assistant and a minor - decades her junior -to the authorities in 2017, especially given that the teaching assistant had apparently served on the Staff Association in 2015 and went on the be a Board observer so would have had access to information relating to other whistleblower cases.

The present Ecolint Board chair has apparently been in possession of an independent review of this case by Rudin Cantieni (Zurich) since August 2024, but hasn't shared it - in spite of its implications for proceedings.

Broader Implications: Conflicts of Interest and Policy Failures

The involvement of Pascal Emery, a former state representative on Ecolint’s board and the husband of Anne Emery-Torracinta, then head of the Geneva Department of Public Education (DIP), highlights serious conflicts of interest. This is particularly concerning given the DIP’s 2019 directive prioritizing internal reporting over external authorities in cases of child abuse—a policy criticized for shielding institutional wrongdoing rather than ensuring accountability.

A Call for Accountability

This whistleblower’s case reveals alleged systemic failings within Geneva’s judiciary and institutions, raising critical questions about the protection of those who expose wrongdoing. The reliance on unqualified testimony, forced psychiatric evaluations, and coordinated retaliation underscores a troubling erosion of justice. Immediate investigations into these practices and comprehensive reforms are necessary to restore trust in Geneva’s institutions and ensure accountability for those who abuse their power.