A former senior manager at Family Health International (FHI 360) has lost a legal dispute against her former employer over allegations of falsifying data for HIV/AIDS patients in Nakuru Hospital.
The decision rendered by the Employment and Labour Relations Court in Nairobi also brought to light serious questions about the accuracy of health data used to procure essential aid, including resources and life-saving drugs for people living with the disease.
The lawsuit stems from the dismissal of Ms. Everline Ashiono, who served as the Chief of Party at FHI 360.
She was accused of submitting falsified data which included 1,675 more patients than were actually recorded at Nakuru Provincial General Hospital.
The discrepancies were flagged during an audit conducted by the National AIDS and STIs Control Program (NASCOP), in collaboration with USAID.
The data in question was collected over a nine-month period from October 2017 to June 2018. According to the audit’s findings, the returns submitted to USAID and NASCOP reported 1,675 more patients than the actual number recorded in the hospital’s daily activity register. This discrepancy raised red flags about the accuracy of HIV/AIDS statistics used for programming and aid allocation.
As Chief of the Party, Ms. Ashiono’s role included acting as the primary liaison with USAID and managing staff.
It was alleged that the daily activity register for the hospital had been manipulated by a team known as the HIV Service Delivery Support Activity (HSDSA) using reconstructed numbers.
The audit revealed that the returns sent to USAID reflected inflated numbers, which undermined the integrity of the data that FHI 360 relied upon for its operations.
Ms. Ashiono, who had worked for FHI 360 for 17 years, disputed the allegations.
She claimed that the errors in the data were corrected before her dismissal and that the disciplinary proceedings were predetermined.
Ashiono argued that she was not provided with the necessary documents to adequately defend herself and claimed that the process was a mere formality, as FHI 360 had already decided to terminate her position.
Ms Ashiono was aggrieved by the dismissal and she sued the organization seeking a compensation of Sh60 million in the form of damages for loss of employment, gratuity, salary, and payment for pending leave days.
She wants the Labour court to declare her dismissal unfair and unlawful.
However, the Employment and Labour Relations Court ruled in favor of FHI 360.
Justice Nelson Abuodha dismissed Ashiono’s claims stating that the organization had valid reasons to terminate her employment.
The judge further ruled that the termination process had followed a fair procedure in accordance with the organization’s HR policies.
In his verdict, dated March 7, 2025, Justice Abuodha noted that there was clear evidence that the data Ashiono had submitted was exaggerated and compromised the integrity of HIV/AIDS statistics.
The judge explained that FHI 360 placed significant importance on data integrity for its programming and operations, and as Chief of Party, Ashiono was responsible for ensuring the accuracy of such data.
“There was clear and reasonable evidence that the data, which the claimant celebrated, was exaggerated and therefore compromised the integrity of the HIV data that the respondent could have relied on for its activities and programming,” said Justice Abuodha
The court also addressed Ashiono’s claim that she was not given sufficient documentation to defend herself.
On Ms Ashiono’s claim that she was not furnished with the documents in support of the charges against her, Justice Abuodha found that Ashiono had been fully aware of the issues regarding data integrity and had acknowledged these issues in an email.
The court also stated that her request for additional documents was simply an attempt to delay the proceedings.
“It could therefore be safely assumed that the claimant was fully aware of the charges against her and what they entailed to adequately participate in the disciplinary hearing. The request for more documents was therefore just an attempt to buy time,” said Justice Abuodha.
The court observed that FHI 360 organization placed premium on data integrity for its activities and programming and Ms Ashiono, according to her job description, was responsible for ensuring that the data met the standards required. Hence, she could not pass the back to anyone else.
“The claimant celebrated the inflated data, and there was no evidence provided that she raised concerns with the Director or staff under her supervision regarding the inaccuracies,” said Justice Abuodha.
The court ultimately sided with FHI 360, ruling that the dismissal was justified and the process followed was fair.
