Mediation is a fair and efficient process to help you resolve your employment disputes and reach an agreement. A neutral mediator assists you in reaching a voluntary, negotiated agreement. Choosing mediation to resolve employment discrimination disputes promotes a better work environment, reduces cost, and works for the employer and the employee.

Facts about Mediation

Mediation is a form of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that is offered by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) as an alternative to the traditional investigative or litigation process. Mediation is an informal process in which a neutral third party assists the opposing parties to reach a voluntary, negotiated resolution of a charge of discrimination. The decision to mediate is completely voluntary for the charging party and the employer. Mediation gives the parties the opportunity to discuss the issues raised in the charge, clear up misunderstandings, determine the underlying interests or concerns, find areas of agreement and, ultimately, to incorporate those areas of agreements into resolutions. A mediator does not resolve the charge or impose a decision on the parties. Instead, the mediator helps the parties to agree on a mutually acceptable resolution. The mediation process is strictly confidential. Information disclosed during mediation will not be revealed to anyone, including other CHR employees.

How Mediation Works

A CHR representative will contact the employee and employer concerning their participation in the program. If both parties agree, a mediation session conducted by a trained and experienced mediator is scheduled. While it is not necessary to have an attorney in order to participate in CHR's Mediation Program, either party may choose to do so. It is important that persons attending the mediation session have the authority to resolve the dispute. If mediation is unsuccessful, the charge is investigated like any other charge.

Advantages of Mediation

• Mediation is an efficient process that saves time and money. Successful mediation avoids a time consuming investigation and achieves a prompt resolution of the charge. The majority of mediations are completed in one session, which usually lasts for one to five hours.
• Mediation is fair. Mediators are neutral third parties who have no interest in the outcome. Their role is to help the parties resolve the charge.
• Mediation is a confidential process. The sessions are not tape-recorded or transcribed. Notes taken during the mediation are discarded.
• Settlement agreements secured during mediation do not constitute an admission by the employer of any violation of laws enforced by the EOB.
• Mediation avoids lengthy and unnecessary litigation.

An Evaluation of the CHR Mediation Program

In January 1998, the CHR implemented a mediation program, which put into practice the methods of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). This program partnership with Nova Southeastern University's School of Social and Systematic Studies, Department of Dispute Resolution, assists parties in a formal dispute to resolve the case with mediation before the agency begins the investigation into the allegations of discrimination. Both parties must agree to mediate. If the mediation should reach an impasse, the aggrieved party has the option to have the CHR investigate the case and proceed with the administrative process.

In June 1999, the CHR began administering a survey aimed at gauging the participants' perceptions of satisfaction with the agency's mediation program. The questionnaire encompassed perceptions of satisfaction with the process, the mediator and the results of the mediation. The questionnaires were administered after the mediation, placed in sealed envelopes and returned to the ADR coordinator.

The survey results over the years have revealed that a high majority of the participants reported being satisfied or highly satisfied with the mediators and the process of mediation.

The preliminary study revealed that a high majority of the participants reported being satisfied or highly satisfied with the process of mediation except for control over the process. A majority of the participants reported being satisfied or highly satisfied with the mediator, yet the charging parties did not rate the overall performance of the mediator as high as the respondents did. The charging parties reported lower rates of satisfaction with outcomes on questions of satisfaction with the results, opportunity to contribute, and meeting expectations. This may be due to employees having expected more (expected the best) and employers having expected less (expected the worst), but the majority of respondents were satisfied or highly satisfied that mediation met their expectations.