FF 05 de 82

Employment Dispute Resolution
Revolution - Online Dispute

Resolution at the EEOC
Presented by the
American Bar Association
Section of Dispute Resolution
American Bar Association
ABACLE
321 North Clark Street, Suite 2000
Chicago, IL 60654-7598
www.americanbar.org
800.285.2221
Submit a Question
Visit
https://americanbar.qualtrics.com/SE/?SID=SV_2uB91twXeymw6FL&pCode=DR2111MEDO
LC5 to submit a question on the content of this course to program faculty. We’ll route your
question to a faculty member or qualified commentator in 2 business days.
The materials contained herein represent the opinions of the authors and editors and should not
be construed to be the action of the American Bar Association Section of Dispute Resolution
unless adopted pursuant to the bylaws of the Association.
Nothing contained in this book is to be considered as the rendering of legal advice for specific
cases, and readers are responsible for obtaining such advice from their own legal counsel. This
book and any forms and agreements herein are intended for educational and informational
purposes only.
© 2019 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.
This publication accompanies the audio program entitled “Employment Dispute

Resolution Revolution - Online Dispute Resolution at the EEOC” broadcast on April 2 6,
2022 (event code: DR2204VSCOLC2).
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Presentation Slides
2. After 20 Years, Mediation is Mainstream at the EEOC

E. Patrick McDermott, Stephen Ichniowski, Katherine S. Perez, and
Jennifer Ortiz Prather
3. Participant
4. Mediator
1
2
Employment Dispute
Resolution Revolution:
Online Dispute
Resolution at the EEOC
ABA Dispute Resolution Section

Virtual - Annual Conference
April 25-29, 2022
Jennifer Ortiz Stephen
Prather, Esq. Ichniowski, Esq.
Houston National ADR

District Office Coordinator, DC
Stephanie E. Patrick McDermott,

Marino, Esq. Ph.D., LL.M. J.D.
Philadelphia Salisbury University, MD

District
Office
Today’s Session
 Information about the
EEOC’s National Mediation
Program
 The Impact of the Pandemic

and transition to 100% video
conference mediations
 The Mediation Surveys:

Methodology and Questions
 Sowing the Seeds for our

Future@Work in Mediation
The EEOC Mediation Process
 Pre-investigation
 Voluntary
 Neutral, Confidential, Enforceable
 If no mediation, then EEOC investigation
 EEOC can issue notice of Reasonable Cause

or No Cause
 Regardless of EEOC decision you get a Right

to Sue Letter and have 90 days to get an
attorney and file a federal or state lawsuit
EEOC Charge Flow Chart
From 1999-2021
 Offer free, voluntary mediation service
to the private sector
History of
 Approximately, 249,000 mediations held
the EEOC’s
National  Resolved nearly 180,000 private sector
charges
Mediation
 Obtained over $3.15 billion in benefits
Program
 Resolved 72% of the cases in mediation
 Accomplished in half the time of average

investigation and under 100 days on
average
Mediation Mindset Prior to the Pandemic
Online is
Less
Effective
Fear of/Reluctance
In Person Only
to use Technology
Online Less
Successful
How Did Our Garden Grow?
2000 - Participant Evaluation (McDermott, et. al.)
2001 - Mediator Perceptions of Process

(McDermott, et. al)
2003 - Reasons Employers Decline EEOC Mediation

Participation (McDermott, et. al)
2018/19 - Paper form provided to parties in person

after the conclusion of the in-person mediation session
2021 Study: Methodology & Protocols
Identified issues to measure
10 months of survey development
Pre-test with Supervisory ADR in all EEOC Offices
Surveys – Mediator Summer of 2021 – Participant Fall of 2021
Similar questions as 2001 surveys
Additional ODR focused questions

THE 2021 MEDIATOR SURVEY
 EEOC STAFF MEDIATORS

https://www.dropbox.com/s/9c4c4ysff4e7448/F
inal%20Mediator%20survey%20%282%29.pdf?dl=0
 PRO BONO
 CONTRACT MEDIATORS
THE 2021 PARTICIPANT SURVEY
 CHARGING PARTIES
 CP COUNSEL https://www.dropbox.com/s/ln1r6rzb8yyn
a08/FINAL%20for%20report%202021%20M
ediation%20Participant%20Survey%20%20
-%20%202022-2-10%2016-
 EMPLOYERS 13%2029132%20%282%29.pdf?dl=0
 EMPLOYER COUNSEL
What We Participant Survey
Wanted To • More Flexible than In Person Mediation
Know: • Online Dispute Mediation – Platform Use
• Change in Quality/Value of Settlements
Mediation Survey
2021 Surveys
• More Flexible Schedule with Parties
• Negotiations Similar and Effective
• Work-Life Balance Issues
• Quality/Value of Settlements
 Would CPs and Employers use EEOC ODR
mediation again?
 Procedural Justice Measures Viewed as

Fair
 Distributive Justice Measures ODR as Fair

Additional Areas
 Outcome Satisfaction Rate vs. 2000 In-
Investigated Person Mediation Rate
 Non-Pandemic Factors – Location,

Convenience, Efficiency
 ODR Comparisons - more/less/similarly

attractive - to In-Person Mediation
Key Program Measures in the Survey
1 2 3
Resolution Allegations of Access to

Rates? Breach? Justice Issues?
Participation
Questions
Regarding: Comfort Level in Online
Mediation
Access to Flexibility
Justice for
Individuals Online Access No Longer a
Barrier
15
Greater Willingness to Participate
Less Stress than In Person Mediation

Access to
Justice Greater Flexibility with Schedules
for Working, Parents or Care Givers
Online Access is NOT as Great of a

Barrier as Initially Perceived
16
Coming Soon!
Publication of Reports
Check EEOC’s Website

www.eeoc.gov
Challenges
 Technology Transition
for Mediators
 Technology Transition
for Parties
 The Hybrid Approach
 Cases for Online

Concerns
“At first, I was nervous about how the transition to
100% online for all mediations would work. I
questioned whether parties would even participate.
With all parties, including our mediators, focused on
continuing operations, despite the pandemic
circumstances, we provided quality mediation
service and improved morale for staff and parties.”
Insights from
Mediators “The convenience of video conferencing is a win-win
& Observers solution all the way around. It saves time, money and
resource given that parties do not have to travel to a
particular location. For parties who are reluctant to be
“face-to-face” in the same space, video conferencing
provides the perfect alternative. There is nothing to
lose with a virtual mediation format, but so much to be
gained!”
More Insights from Parties...
“The mediation process and our mediator were very organized and objective. The video
meditation made it easier for our company representatives to attend and the process was
overall very effective and efficient. I believe allowing the parties to choose between in
person mediation and remote would be beneficial, as often representatives are out of
state."
“Being physically in the same room could have been uncomfortable or intimidating, but this
way I could participate from the comfort of my own home. Also, there were long periods of
the mediation that I was not part of and during that time I was able to catch up on work
emails and do other things.”
“As an attorney with 30 years of experience I think the advent of video mediations is
fantastic; my clients and I have no desire to travel to central (CITY) and spend a
significant amount of down time in a conference room when the mediator is speaking
with the other side.”
Future at Work
The future is not

where we are going,
it is the place that
you get to create.
3
After 20 Years, Mediation
is Mainstream at the EEOC
What began as a case-management tool
is now an essential option
By E. Patrick McDermott, Stephen Ichniowski,
Katherine S. Perez, and Jennifer Ortiz Prather
W
hen the United States Congress passed the against a job applicant or an employee because of
Civil Rights Act of 1964, it sought to recog- race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, gender
nize the legislative efforts of the recently identity, and sexual orientation), national origin,
assassinated President John F. Kennedy and bring age (after age 40), disability, or genetic information.
to a culmination long-standing efforts by civil-rights Federal laws also prohibit discrimination against
advocates to outlaw racial and other discrimination. someone out of retaliation — because he or she
The Civil Rights Act, an omnibus bill that aimed complained about discrimination, filed a charge of
to address discrimination in voting, public accom- discrimination, or participated in an employment dis-
modation, education, and employment, established crimination investigation or lawsuit. The EEOC’s range
the United States Equal Employment Opportunity is wide, covering most employers that have at least
Commission (EEOC), an organization that in the past 15 employees (or, in the case of age discrimination,
50 years has become so well established that today 20 employees). Most labor unions and employment
many people know it only by its initials. agencies come under its umbrella.
The EEOC’s website offers a straightforward but Back in 1964, Congress expected that the EEOC
ambitious mission statement: Prevent and remedy could investigate and resolve all the meritorious cases
unlawful employment discrimination and advance brought before it. But as soon as 1965, when the
equal opportunity for all in the workplace. In practice, commission really got started, its case inventory was
this means that the EEOC is responsible for enforcing 3,000; by the early 1990s, its backlog included more
all federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate than 130,000 charges, the term used for complaints
6 DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE | SUMMER 2018

or cases within the EEOC’s enabling legislation. As As new statutes added
new statutes added new cases, EEOC managers
introduced various investigative tools to reduce the new cases, EEOC managers
backlog, but everyone knew something much more introduced various investigative
comprehensive was needed.
In late 1994, EEOC Chairman Gilbert F. Casellas
tools to reduce the backlog,
established several internal task forces to study the but everyone knew something
case-handling challenges. One recommended divid-
much more comprehensive
ing charges into triage-type categories:
• “A” charges: those the EEOC staff considered
was needed.
likely to result in a finding of “reasonable cause”
of a violation of the law; caught the attention of lawmakers. In a bipartisan
• “B” charges: those with possible merit, with the effort, Congress voted to increase the EEOC’s 1999
final finding contingent on the results of the budget by $37 million, with $13 million specifically
investigation; and allocated for the institutionalization of its mediation
program.1 This allowed the EEOC to fully implement
• “C” charges: those without merit on their face
its dispute resolution/mediation program by April
that should be dismissed outright.
1999, integrating this process along with its revised
Traditional investigation would assist in resolving A/B/C charge-processing procedures, all of which
the A charges, the task force suggested, but for the evolved into the commission’s current model of
larger pool of B charges, a new mechanism would be charge resolution.
needed. Following this suggestion, another task force The EEOC’s roster of neutrals is comprised of
explored the idea of expanding the use of dispute mediators who have expertise in both equal employ-
resolution, which had been piloted in four EEOC ment opportunity matters and the EEOC’s process.
offices in the early 1990s, and in 1995 it concluded Given that the mediation option is offered pre-inves-
that mediation was indeed a viable alternative process tigation, the program has a facilitative, not evaluative,
for resolving charges. Shortly thereafter, the commis- approach. The EEOC currently employs more than 80
sion voted to commit the agency to mediation as a full-time staff mediators, many of whom mediate three
voluntary alternative. The EEOC’s mediation program to four days a week in locations within commuting
was officially up and running. distance of their offices. In more remote areas and
underserved regions, the commission relies on con-
The EEOC’s mediation policy principles tractors or individuals who have agreed to provide the
The EEOC-adopted dispute resolution policy service on a pro bono basis. Contractors receive a flat
states that its program is governed by several core fee of $800 per charge mediated, with all costs and
principles, all of which will be familiar to those in expenses included in that fee. Funding for the contract
the dispute resolution field: voluntariness (participa- program varies from year to year depending upon the
tion at all stages is voluntary), neutrality (third-party agency’s budget level. (While the contract roster is
neutrals assist in resolution at no cost to parties), currently closed, a request for proposals is anticipated
confidentiality (within each individual session and in early fiscal year 2019; for more information,
inside the agency, through a “firewall” separating www.FedBizzOpps.gov.)
mediation activity from investigation and litigation),
and enforceability (agreements can be enforceable A look at the numbers
through a model settlement agreement in which the From 1999 through mid-2018, the agency conduct-
EEOC is a party). ed more than 214,000 mediations, resulting in more
By the end of 1997, each of the EEOC’s 24 than 155,000 resolutions (a resolution rate of about
district offices and the Washington Field Office had a 72%) and helped parties get more than $2.5 billion in
sustainable mediation program, a phenomenon that monetary benefits.2
SUMMER 2018 | DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE 7

Each year the program averages 11,300 media- investigative process. Commission officials and aca-
tions, helps resolve about 8,150 charges, and obtains demic studies reviewing the program, however, have
more than $130 million in monetary benefits (often concluded that when a carefully trained experienced
accounting for more than 50% of the total benefits mediator selects an appropriate location, determines
obtained through the administrative — i.e., non- exactly who should be present, and clearly outlines a
litigation — process annually). Cases are completed tailor-made protocol for meetings, parties can have
in an average of 94 days, less than one-third of the productive, professional, and safe discussions that can
current investigative processing time. These statistics help people move toward resolution. For all disputes,
do not include “mini-wins,” cases in which the EEOC wise counsel may use the EEOC mediation program
mediation sets the stage for later resolution, some- for an early, free opportunity to resolve a dispute.
times days or weeks later.
The benefits of the program stretch far and wide, What participants say
well beyond the commission itself and the parties In 2000, an independent university research team
it serves: the program reduces state and federal (led by E. Patrick McDermott, one of the coauthors of
caseloads because disputes are often multi-faceted, this article) evaluated the EEOC’s mediation program.
involving state courts and administrative agencies such Among the findings:
as workers’ compensation boards, the Federal Labor • An overwhelming majority of the participants
Relations Authority (FLRA), the Department of Labor (91% of charging parties and 96% of respon-
(DOL), and the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB). dents) indicated that they would be willing to
participate in the mediation program again
The scope of EEOC mediations
if they were a party to an EEOC charge.
Most EEOC cases involve questions of racial, Participants, regardless of their satisfaction with
disability, gender, or age discrimination in an employ- the outcome of mediation, overwhelmingly indi-
ment setting, well within the limits of the commis- cated their willingness to return to mediation.
sion’s mandate. Sometimes, however, disputants’
concerns fall outside the scope of laws that the EEOC • The participants expressed strong satisfac-
enforces, including claims at the state level and other tion with the information they received about
related workplace issues. While the EEOC cannot be mediation from the EEOC before the mediation
a party to the settlement of such ancillary matters, session. They also felt very strongly that they
the dispute resolution process does permit parties to understood the process after the mediator’s
enter separate bilateral agreements that may be refer- introduction.
enced but not incorporated into the EEOC settlement. • The vast majority of participants agreed that their
When mediation first started being used widely at mediation was scheduled promptly and that they
the EEOC, some observers initially expressed con- had a full opportunity to present their views dur-
cerns that certain charges (such as sexual harassment ing the mediation.
and mental disability claims) would not be appropriate • Participants were especially satisfied with the
for mediation and should be routed only through the role and conduct of the mediators. They felt
strongly that the mediators understood their
needs, helped clarify those needs, and assisted
them in developing options for resolving the
The EEOC’s roster of charge. They felt even more strongly that the
neutrals is comprised of mediators procedures used by the mediators were fair. The
questions regarding the neutrality of the media-
who have expertise in both equal
tors elicited some of the strongest responses
employment opportunity matters from the participants, who felt that the media-
tors were neutral throughout the process. As
and the EEOC’s process.
one might expect from those looking back on a

process that doesn’t always give people exactly Overall, participant
what they want, participants generally expressed
stronger satisfaction with the process than with feedback regarding the EEOC
the case outcome. mediation program indicated that
• Participant satisfaction with the EEOC media- the program is, by any measure,
tion program remained high even when the
participant responses differed as to the nature of acceptable to those who
the charges (such as the statute involved or the participated in it.
substance of the dispute) and the characteristics
of the mediation session (such as whether lawyers
were involved or the differing mediator’s style, will settle at some point, rendering mediation an
training, and methodology). obvious choice to expedite this activity. While some
cases may be fully litigated and ultimately disposed
Overall, participant feedback regarding the EEOC of at the summary judgment stage, an employer can
mediation program indicated that the program is, by expend significant resources just to get to that stage,
any measure, acceptable to those who participated and a negotiated resolution early in the case may
in it.3 be quicker, less expensive, and less burdensome for
all concerned. Mediation may also help in instances
How the program helps lawyers
where the client has an unrealistic view of the dam-
and their clients ages that could be awarded in the case. A skilled
Like most mediations, the EEOC’s dispute neutral can provide valuable assistance by making
resolution process gives parties a chance to share sure parties consider the real-life consequences of
information that may lead to the resolution of a their decisions and actions.
dispute — one that can range from a misunderstand- Mediation is especially beneficial for pro se
ing to a serious violation of the law requiring signifi- parties and respondents unfamiliar with the special-
cant damages. ized advocacy and negotiation that employment liti-
EEOC mediation is also an effective opportunity for gation may require. A skilled, experienced mediator
the savvy lawyer to assess the other party’s strength can ensure that parties inexperienced in EEO matters
as a witness, understand the key issues of the dispute, are provided a balanced and corresponding voice in
and find out whether the lawyer’s client has accu- the process.
rately communicated the crux of the dispute and the Mediation often enables parties — and their
potential exposure to the organization. This is not free lawyers — to diagnose the relative strengths and
discovery but rather free case assessment, with an weaknesses of their underlying claims. While the pro-
opportunity to reduce exposure early. gram has officially adopted the facilitative approach
Mediation can change a lawyer’s perspective, in conducting its sessions, the EEOC soon recognized
presenting new facts and surprising information. that discussions concerning the merits of the charge
One coauthor of this article, E. Patrick McDermott, almost invariably occur, and it now permits its media-
represented management for more than two decades tors to guide the conversation and the parties through
before litigating plaintiffs’ cases for more than 20 reality checks and probative questions, affording par-
years. He has seen cases litigated and settled at trial ticipants the platform to control the process and, more
where payment of hundreds of thousands of dollars important, preserving their right to self-determination.
could have been settled at the EEOC for significantly Program designers recognize this delicate balance of
less — with full party satisfaction. He also seen cases controlling the process so that the mediator maintains
in which a pending EEOC claim was not resolved and neutrality through inquiries and guidance that support
subsequent litigation became a fertile ground for the parties’ self-evaluation. They also know that this
discovery of numerous other lawsuits. requires a carefully measured, practiced finesse.
Even for plaintiffs’ lawyers who believe in the mer-
its of their clients’ cases, the reality is that most cases

Finally, the EEOC experience and related evalua- The EEOC has shown that it is possible to design
tion data show that mediation can help counsel shift and implement a large-scale ADR process within an
from positional conduct based on their perception of administrative process operating under well-estab-
the existing law to the root cause of the dispute. This lished statutory constructs. In short, mediation can be
assists counsel in fashioning creative agreements — embedded into an existing agency culture. The key is
many of them free from damage limitations and case understanding the pre-existing culture of the agency
law, with payment schedules and characterizations of or organization and its stakeholders, and this kind of
damages that maximize parties’ positions under tax understanding can come only from inside — and only
rules and other laws. with the long-term, strong support from organizational
leaders. At the EEOC, support has come internally
Lessons for dispute resolution directly from the chair’s office and executive directors
designers and externally from employer and employee groups
The EEOC evaluation data and participants’ with a stake in durable, workable solutions.
experiences underscore the importance of procedural For observers such as legal practitioners, profes-
variables, including the beliefs that the mediator sional neutrals, scholars, and dispute design profes-
was neutral, that the party had a full opportunity sionals, the EEOC program is proof that disputants
to present his or her story, that the mediation was like mediation, often want to mediate, and are
held in a timely matter, and that the process was usually satisfied with it. While experts may identify
explained and understood. An acceptable, neutral certain instances in which a claim should not have
way for parties to work out a dispute is central to the been mediated or a case ended in impasse because
EEOC program’s success. Parties know they cannot not all the appropriate decision-makers were
compete to “win” at mediation; they also know that involved, incidents that program administrators
they can find satisfaction in a respectful process with recognize and address, such critiques should not
a fair outcome. swallow the whole. Mediation works where there is
While high settlement rates are important, they careful program design and enduring commitment to
are not the sine qua non of a successful mediation that program’s success.
or program. Success in mediation can be defined in The EEOC’s program, which began with volunteer
many ways and may come long after the actual medi- mediators and continues today with careful funding, is
ation sessions (See the article by Ava J. Abramowitz also proof that a successful program can be developed
in this issue for an extensive discussion of “success” with minimal resources. It is also a reminder that con-
in mediation). Sometimes a mediation simply builds trolling a process that happens behind closed doors is
the foundation for a future resolution, as parties a challenge; while the program’s process is facilitative,
exchange new information and attempt to fashion some evaluation may occur and may be necessary.
solutions that may form a basis for settlement. If party Program designers who look at the EEOC experience
satisfaction with the process is the best measure, the will also see that as in other realms, even with targeted
EEOC’s score is remarkable: as the 2000 university promotion, getting parties — and their lawyers — to
evaluation noted, 91% of the charging parties and the table early in their dispute is far from easy.
96% of the respondents said they would use this
process again. Future issues and challenges
The EEOC mediation program continues to wrestle
with four challenges, many of them shared by other
programs. First, how should mediator performance
While high settlement
be evaluated? A valuable mediation can occur with
rates are important, they are not or without immediate resolution. With this in mind,
how can we quantify the performance of a particular
the sine qua non of a successful
mediator in a particular case? From a practical
mediation or program. and research methodology perspective, effective

From a holistic vantage From a holistic vantage point, any successful
program must be self-aware, adapting and changing
point, any successful program as times and parties require. If the EEOC’s mediation
must be self-aware, adapting program is to remain vital and useful, managers
must study what works, what doesn’t help, and
and changing as times and what people want and need, including the use of
parties require. new technology — and then put that learning
into practice. ■
evaluation is a difficult and expensive process fraught
with ethical concerns related to the underlying confi- Note: The views expressed by the EEOC employ-
dential nature of the mediation process. Second, the ees in this article are the employees’ own and do
fact that mediation saves public and private resources not necessarily represent the views of the EEOC.
doesn’t always translate to support by policy-makers,
and program advocates need to do a better job of Endnotes
identifying and marketing the business justification 1 A key factor in obtaining funding support from
for mediation. Education and public awareness are Congress was a joint letter to committee chairpersons from
constant challenges for the EEOC, as they are for so employer and worker advocacy groups, including the Equal
Employment Advisory Council (EEAC), the Labor Association,
many in this field. In mediation, as in dance, it takes
the Women’s Defense Legal Fund, the National Employment
two to tango, and the EEOC will not mediate if both Lawyers Association, the Employment Litigation Project of the
parties do not agree to participate in the process. Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, and the
This surely results in many missed cases, and program Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.
personnel must focus on communicating the value of 2 This figure does not account for other settlement
mediation to parties and counsel in ways that make caused by EEOC mediation but resolved later outside the
EEOC’s aegis.
them want to consider early settlement opportunities. 3 E. Patrick McDermott et. al., An Evaluation of the Equal
Our final challenge involves recognizing and embrac- Employment Opportunity Commission Mediation Program,
ing change. Studying many systems, including the Executive Summary, https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/media-
EEOC model, and understanding how they maintain tion/report/ (last accessed April 27, 2018).
their vitality, adopt new technologies, and continue to
evolve are crucial.
E. Patrick McDermott, Ph.D., is Professor of Management and Legal Studies

at the Franklin P. Perdue School of Business at Salisbury University in Maryland.
Before joining Salisbury University, he served as Associate General Counsel
at ABC/Disney and in labor relations positions at Johnson & Johnson and
Pan American World Airways. He was also a partner in the labor and employ-
ment law department of a major Baltimore law firm. He can be reached at
epmcdermott@salisbury.edu. Steve Ichniowski, has been the National Coordinator of the EEOC’s ADR program since its
inception in 1998. He has also served as an Administrative Judge in the EEOC’s Washington Field Office and as an attorney in
the commission’s Office of Legal Counsel during his more than 30 years with the agency. He can be reached at stephen.ichnio-
wski@eeoc.gov. Katherine S. Perez began her career with the EEOC almost 25 years ago. Prior to assuming her current posi-
tion as the Dallas District Office’s ADR Coordinator, she served as an investigator, mediator, and ADR coordinator for the San
Antonio Office. In her present role, she oversees the EEOC’s mediation programs in the Dallas District Office, the San Antonio
Field Office and the El Paso Area Office, which mediates employment discrimination cases throughout northern, western, and
southern Texas as well as southern New Mexico. She can be reached at katherine.perez@eeoc.gov. Jennifer Ortiz Prather is
a supervisory attorney for the EEOC’s Houston District Office’s ADR Program. She began her federal service as a Presidential
Management Fellow at the US Department of Labor’s Civil Rights Center, served for nine years as a Commissioner of Mediation
for the US Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service in the Office of International & ADR Services in Washington, DC, and
moved back to her home state of Texas to work for the EEOC in 2010. She can be reached at jennifer.ortiz@eeoc.gov.

4
The data establishes that ODR is valued by the mediation participants. Key findings include:
• Ninety-two percent of CPs and 98% of Employers would use EEOC ODR mediation
again.
• Procedural Justice measures show that 86% of Charging Parties (“CPs”) and 94% of
Employers view the ODR procedures used by EEOC mediators as fair.
• The Distributive Justice measure of overall fairness shows that 82% of CPs and 91%
of Employers view the overall ODR mediation as fair.
• The Distributive Justice measure of outcome satisfaction shows that 60% of CPs and
72% of Employers are satisfied with the results of the ODR mediation. This outcome
satisfaction rate is much higher than the 2000 IPM rate.
• Nearly 70% of the participants prefer ODR to IPM for a future mediation even where
IPM is offered by the EEOC. Only 13% preferred IPM in the future.
• While responses to an open-ended question reflect that the COVID-19 pandemic
(“pandemic”) influences the preference for ODR, there was extensive data showing
that the ODR preference is often related to non-pandemic factors such as flexibility,
location convenience, safe space, and efficiency. In particular, Employers and
counsel note the importance of this efficiency in open-ended comments.
• Sixty-two percent of Employers stated that the availability of ODR makes it more
attractive for them to participate in EEOC mediation.
• Overall, the ODR measures are similar to or higher than the 2000 IPM measures but
not quite as high as the EEOC’s internal 2018/2019 survey using the same benchmark
measures.
• CPs overwhelming report that the key issue at impasses is money. New ODR
measures show that at final impasse the parties are far apart on money. EEOC
mediators seldom had an impasse outcome unless the money impasse gap was large
suggesting the mediators competently discharged their duties.
• Access to justice is significantly increased by ODR flexibility and location plus
Employer willingness to participate in a case resolution via ODR.
• In comparison of measures across the two parties, Employers historically report
higher satisfaction across the range of procedural and due process measures including
in ODR.
• Where the parties do not settle, 33% report progress was made toward resolution.
Thirty-eight percent report no progress with the remaining neither agreeing or
disagreeing.
• Overall, the data show that, in general, a CPs best chance for obtaining economic
value is at the mediation stage.
• 68% of the CPs had first attempted to resolve the dispute directly with their employer
but were unsuccessful.
APPENDIX B – DATA TABLES
Table 1. Survey Participation Rate
# %
Total number of mediation participants who received
2387 100%
surveys by email
Consented – full survey 1197 50%

Consented – short survey * 37 2%
Did not consent/left survey completely blank/answered a
1153 48%
few basic “demographic” information only
Actual number of surveys included in the analysis b 1234
* “Repeat participants”: participants (mostly party representatives) who have completed the survey from a previous
mediation/case and agreed to complete a shorter version of the survey pertaining to the current case.
Table 2. Survey Participation, by Party

All Participants
# %
Total number of mediation participants 1234 100%
Charging Party 225 18%

Charging Party Representative 227 18%
Respondent 271 22%
Respondent Representative 511 41%
Table 3. Involvement of Insurance Company
Question: Is an insurance company involved in this case?
All Participants
# %
Total number responding 1234 100%
Yes 258 21%

No 789 64%
Not sure/don't know 180 15%
Blank/No response 7 1%
Table 4. Presence of Insurance Adjuster

Question: Was an insurance adjuster present during or at any time in the mediation?
All Participants
# %
Total number responding (cases where
insurance company was involved) 258 100%
Yes 66 26%
No 185 72%
Blank/No response 7 3%
Table 5a. Specific Role of Charging Party and Respondent Representatives
All Participants
# %
Total number of charging party and respondent
representatives responding 709 100.0%
Attorney 590 83.2%

Company HR representative 64 9.0%
Company Labor Relations Representative 3 0.4%
Company line management or employee supervisor 5 0.7%
Company management a level or more above that of the
Charging Party supervisor 20 2.8%
Union representative 4 0.6%
Friend or family member 2 0.3%
Consultant 3 0.4%
Others (See list below) 18 2.5%
Company/general/in-house counsel 5
Claim Specialist 1
Compliance Officer 1
EEO Specialist/Manager 2
Insurance representative 1
Non-attorney Representative 1
Paralegal 4
Others 3
Table 6. Communication Platform
Question: What communication platform was used in your mediation?
Charging Party Respondent and
and Party Party
All Participants Representative Representative
# % # % # %
Total number responding 1159 100% 426 100% 733 100%
Primarily/mainly by video call:

Zoom including on cellphone
and iPad, Google Meet, or
another Video service 1002 86% 350 82% 652 89%
Primarily/mainly by audio call:
hardline/landline phone, cell
phone 98 8% 46 11% 52 7%
Roughly 50/50 use of audio and
video 59 5% 30 7% 29 4%
Table 7a. Devices Used – Number of Devices Used during Mediation
Question: Please check ALL the devices you used in today’s mediation. (Cell phone,
Tablet/IPad, Laptop/Desktop, Landline)
and Party Party
# % # % # %
Used one device only 856 74% 286 68% 570 78%
Used two devices 255 22% 106 25% 149 20%
Used three devices 41 4% 27 6% 14 2%
Used four devices 3 0.3% 2 0.5% 1 0.1%
Table 7b. Devices Used during Mediation
Question: Please check ALL the devices you used in today’s mediation. (Cell phone,
Tablet/IPad, Laptop/Desktop, Landline)
and Party Party
# % # % # %
Total number responding 1155 421 734
Cell phone 320 28% 173 41% 147 20%

Tablet/iPad 71 6% 42 10% 29 4%
Laptop/Desktop computer 1012 88% 336 80% 676 92%
Hardline/Landline phone 98 8% 36 9% 62 8%
Table 7c. Device Used to Video Conference with Mediator and Other Party
Question: Please identify the device that you used to video conference with the mediator and the
other party
and Party Party
# % # % # %
Cell phone 102 9% 73 18% 29 4%

Tablet/iPad 48 4% 25 6% 23 3%
Laptop/Desktop computer 964 86% 312 76% 652 93%
Table 8: Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “I was able to communicate effectively with
the other mediation participants with my device.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Total responding 1182 100% 432 100% 750 100%
Strongly Disagree 126 11% 55 13% 71 9%

Disagree 12 1% 3 1% 9 1%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 46 4% 27 6% 19 3%
Agree 350 30% 128 30% 222 30%
Strongly Agree 648 55% 219 51% 429 57%
Mean Rating * 4.1692 4.0486 4.2387

* Based on the Likert scale: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 – Agree, 5 –
Strongly Agree
Table 9. Technical Issues or Equipment Problems that Prevented Satisfactory
Communication During Mediation
Question: Were there any major technical issues or equipment problems that prevented
satisfactory communication during the mediation?
Question was asked among the 138 survey participants who Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed
to the statement: “I was able to communicate effectively with the other mediation participants
with my device.”
Reasons/options listed in survey:
My internet connection was bad/unstable -
Video kept freezing or cutting off 5
Audio kept lagging or cutting out 5
I was on my phone participating without Zoom and the call kept dropping -
Difficulty operating Zoom on my cellphone -
When using Zoom on my cellphone I could not use certain Zoom tools -
When using Zoom on my tablet (iPad/Samsung Galaxy/Lenovo, etc.) I could not use
certain Zoom tools -
Problems with my or my representative’s device 8
Problems with other party’s or their representative’s device 8
Problems with the mediator’s device 3
Other, please specify:(notable responses listed below) 22
Notable verbatim responses
Delayed start due to technical difficulties with Zoom. Later during mediation other party's
calls dropped.
mediator did not have a strong knowledge of zoom capabilities. We were not given separate
rooms during the breakout, and ended up communicating a lot through email and phone
calls. There were times when the video would freeze, as well.
Mediator did not have Zoom rooms/breakouts mastered and was unable to use their video
We didn’t have zoom
I would prefer to be face to face when trying to resolve complex issues. Face to face
interactions are generally more civil than over the phone or internet.
These need to be held in person
I was unable to use the video option on my cell phone or laptop. However, I was able to use
the audio to attend the mediation.
My video feed was sideways. I could fix, but needed to rerotate every time I went in or out of
the break out room.
Plaintiff said that a computer with camera was too much trouble so he only had a telephone
connection
Table 10. Prior Experience with Video Conferencing
Question: I had prior experience (friends, family, school, teacher, etc.) using Zoom, Google
Meet, Microsoft Teams, or other video conferencing tools before this mediation.

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Yes (With prior experience) 1124 96% 395 92% 729 98%
No (No prior experience) 49 4% 33 8% 16 2%
Table 11a. Other Activities Engaged in While in Joint Session with the Other Party
Question: Please tell us if you engaged in any of the following activities while in joint session
with the other side? Please do not include those activities during caucus.

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Total participants 1234 452 782
No, I did not engage in other

activities during the mediation
session. 730 59% 285 63% 445 57%
I contacted others (friends,

colleagues, etc.) outside of the
mediation to get help with
mediation. 58 5% 19 4% 39 5%
I used the internet to research a
mediation issue or topic that I
was not familiar with. 62 5% 36 8% 26 3%
I contacted someone to help me
reach a decision. 84 7% 10 2% 74 9%
I was able to talk to other persons
where I was located for their
advice. 95 8% 19 4% 76 10%
I worked on non-mediation related
activities (“multitasking”). 227 18% 68 15% 159 20%
I was able to use the chat tool to
directly and privately chat with
the mediator while in a joint
session (for example to
immediately respond to what
the other party was saying) 93 8% 48 11% 45 6%
Other mediation related activities
not listed above (See list
below) 38 3% 15 3% 23 3%
Table 11b. Verbatim Responses to the Question on Other Activities Engaged in While in
Joint Session with the Other Party
Question: Please tell us if you engaged in any of the following activities while in joint session
with the other side? Please do not include those activities during caucus.
Verbatim responses by charging parties:

Gathering evidence to defend myself and to show the damage from the responding party.
I had support from friends however, I was told that I couldn't have an attorney present.
The Responding team had an attorney present
I played a card game while waiting in a zoom room alone while the mediator was in
separate discussion with other participants
I was in contact with my lawyer
Writing mediation related notes
I was never in "joint session" with the other side. I only spoke on the phone with the
mediator. No one else was involved. This was confidential so no one advised me.
There was no direct contact with the other side directly. The mediator went back and forth
between the two parties
There was no joint session with the responding party. It was only by cell phone that I
communicate to only the mediator.
Verbatim responses by charging party representatives:
Contacted client using cell
I communicated with my client, the Complainant, via break out room and by cell
I communicated with the client one-on-one
Speak with my client
Electronically send documents to mediator
Receipt of emails/documents from opposing counsel and mediator pertinent to the
negotiation/merits of the claim
Reviewed client documents and EEOC Complaint to refresh my memory or confirm
something discussed during the mediation.
Table 11b. Verbatim Responses to the Question on Other Activities Engaged in While in
Joint Session with the Other Party - continued
Verbatim responses by respondents:

Discussed case with our client who was also charged in matter
Interacted with counsel/representative
Legal Representation was with me
Spoke with team while in break out room.
Updating information and damages calculations
Use breakout rooms to discuss strategy
When we were on long breaks we were able to mute and work on some of our daily office
work. We also had access to our attorney the whole time
We were never in a joint session
Verbatim responses by respondent representatives:
Advising others at client of progress
Communicated separately with clients who were on the Zoom, but physically located in a
different place
communications with client
I consulted with my client without the mediator
I spoke with my clients by telephone. Zoom was only used for the introduction and
conclusion.
I was able to caucus with my client representatives.
Talk with my client
I pulled up file documents to support my positions taken
I was able to look for files and documents related to this claim that were saved in my
computer
Review relevant file materials electronically/information to assist with mediation
Reviewed documents and exhibits related to case.
I did not have a joint session with the other side. Both parties were in separate rooms.
I spoke to the mediator on my cellphone while in a joint session to immediately respond to
the other party or answer the mediator's questions.
I typed notes of the parties' opening remarks and mediator's questions, during joint session
I was able to take notes.
Table 12. Agreement/Disagreement to the Statement: “The mediator was skilled in using
the technology in this mediation.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Agree 1082 92% 379 89% 703 94%

Disagree 19 2% 12 3% 7 1%
Table 13. Did Mediator Test or Preview the Video Platform Prior to Actual Mediation?
Question: Did the mediator test and/or preview the video platform prior to the actual
mediation?

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Yes (Mediator tested/

previewed the video
platform prior to actual
mediation) 597 53% 234 57% 363 51%
No (Mediator did not
test/preview the video
platform prior to actual
mediation) 531 47% 176 43% 355 49%
Table 14. Agreement/Disagreement to the Statement: “The mediator made effective use of
mediation break out rooms where we met separately without the other side so that we could
speak privately about my case.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Agree 1067 91% 375 88% 692 93%

Disagree 36 3% 20 5% 16 2%
Table 15a. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “Prior to my attendance in this mediation
session today, I received an adequate explanation about mediation.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 28 2% 13 3% 15 2%
Agree 429 37% 132 32% 297 41%
Strongly Agree 554 48% 220 53% 334 46%
Mean Rating * 4.2548 4.2799 4.2404

Strongly Agree
Table 15b. Sources of Information Among Participants Who Received Adequate
Explanation about Mediation
Question: If you chose “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” that you received adequate explanation
about mediation: What were your sources of information?

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Total participants who received
adequate explanation about
mediation 983 352 631
Prior discussions with the

mediator explained it to me
prior to mediation. 512 52% 214 61% 298 47%
EEOC charge filing portal 346 35% 114 32% 232 37%
EEOC general website 240 24% 107 30% 133 21%
Pamphlets 48 5% 15 4% 33 5%
Friends and family who had
previous mediation experience 61 6% 27 8% 34 5%
Others (See list below) 343 35% 101 29% 242 38%
Table 15c. Sources of Information Among Participants Who Received Adequate
Explanation about Mediation – Detailed Tabulation by Type of Participant
Charging
Respondent
All Charging Party
Respondent Represent-
Participants Party Represent-
ative
Total participants who received ative
adequate explanation about 983 177 175 214 417
mediation % % % % %
Prior discussions with the mediator
explained it to me prior to
mediation. 52% 66% 55% 36% 53%
EEOC charge filing portal 35% 47% 18% 41% 35%
EEOC general website 24% 40% 21% 21% 21%
Pamphlets 5% 3% 6% 5% 5%
Friends and family who had
previous mediation experience 6% 11% 5% 6% 5%
Verbatim responses:
Attorney/Lawyer/Legal Counsel 11% 18% 2% 25% 6%
Prior experience with mediation 21% 2% 30% 16% 28%
Other sources 3% 3% 4% 3% 3%
Table 16. When Participants First Gained an Understanding of the Mediation Process
Question: When did you first gain an understanding of the mediation process?

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Total participants 1234 100.0% 452 100.0% 782 100.0%
I had experience prior to this

EEOC case 711 58% 201 44% 510 65%
During the charge filing process 72 6% 60 13% 12 2%
Upon notification that a charge
had been filed against us 50 4% - - 50 6%
When I was contacted by the
mediator to discuss a
mediation 65 5% 46 10% 19 2%
From my attorney or
representative 156 13% 53 12% 103 13%
In communications with the EEOC
in the days prior to the
mediation 37 3% 26 6% 11 1%
During the mediation session 49 4% 26 6% 23 3%
No information provided 94 8% 40 9% 54 7%
Table 17. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “After the mediator’s introduction at the
mediation session, I understood how to use the mediation technology.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 18 2% 13 3% 5 1%
Agree 414 36% 133 32% 281 38%
Strongly Agree 596 52% 221 53% 375 51%
Mean Rating * 4.3264 4.2888 4.3479

Strongly Agree
Table 18a. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “The procedures used by the mediator in
the mediation were fair to me.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 18 2% 13 3% 5 1%
Agree 360 31% 118 27% 242 33%
Strongly Agree 712 60% 257 59% 455 61%
Mean Rating * 4.4596 4.3557 4.5202

Strongly Agree
Table 18b. Reasons Given Why Participants Strongly Disagreed or Disagreed to the
Statement: “The procedures used by the mediator in the mediation were fair to me.”
Charging Party Verbatim Responses
Because the mediator did not do his job correctly.
During the first mediation session, I got the impression that I had some leverage. In the second
mediation, it appeared that the mediator was entirely reiterating the agency's line.
I don't feel the mediator used effective tools to shorten the length of the session or encourage
resolution
I feel the mediator did Not work in the best interest of my case. The negotiations were poorly
executed and advised me to accept instead of moving to the next step in which I did.
Then after the call he immediately sent an email case closed. The opposing party send an
agreement after the fact for me to sign in order to release funds but I haven’t signed I Sent
the mediator an email but I received no call back. So this case is not closed.
I went through the process just to get what I could have gotten when I was initially laid off and
was convinced that my number was unreasonable. I have had health issues due to the
stressful and hostile environment I endured and felt that I should have been compensated
for it.
It seems as if the mediator was working for the other side. She was in constant communication
with them. She made it clear that I should settle as she felt I didn't have a case
My mediation lasted 5.5 hours and I was engaged in discussion with the mediator a total of
about 30 minutes. I do not know how many people were present for the charged party but
they used 5 hours of the mediation time with the mediator.
Stated my company said otherwise when I had proof it was a false statement.
The mediator became personally and emotionally involved in our private chat expressing his
personal offense from my perception of bias towards those that represented the interests of
Chewy.
The mediator interrupted me and my representative several times when we tried to speak in
turn. The mediator made accusations as to why I filed an EEOC claim against the
respondents. The mediator stated, "Money!" So it is money you want." The mediator also
insinuated to the respondent (EEOC representative) that "I wish this situation would just go
away!" And the EEOC representative said, "Yes, I do wish this would go away!"
The mediator led with emotional arguments which did not align with the nature of the dynamic
between the parties and emphasized that we had control over the outcome and that the
point was not to purely be a law / facts resolution. Yet, the mediator seemed to draw strong
conclusions about the law based on facts that are disputed and gradually undercut the
point of being at the mediation. The mediator had statements from each side which clearly
identified our arguments. If the mediator had drawn conclusions or was seeking specific
facts which tipped his determination in one direction or the other, he should have been
clearer. Ultimately, my attempts to understand what was driving the discussion -- law / fact
arguments (strength of the case) or emotional arguments (whether wrong was done, even
though a particular party could prevail) -- were unfruitful because, in my opinion, the
mediator was concerned about driving the mediation toward success despite power and
posture imbalances between the parties. Including to the point where, despite emphasizing
law in favor of Respondent in order to encourage me to settle, the mediator de-emphasized
law and questioned my reliance on law when the issue of Confidentiality was raised once I
had coalesced to his pressure to, "put what happened behind me and move on." This is not
to say that the mediator is not skilled or uninformed about the law. I am judging neither. I
am only judging the process and how the session played out.
The mediator seemed to fish and gather privileged information for the respondents. It is my
opinion that the respondents had no intention to settle but gather information to defend
against my case against them.
The mediator should get fired she was very rude and racist and unfair to me
The mediator was not impartial. He attempted to hold me accountable to certain part of a
rejected offer saying I had already agreed to it. He clearly had a relationship with the
attorney and made statement throughout telling g me what he thought the attorney was
thinking
the opposite party did not act sincere
The representative keeps saying things to discourage me and talked as if nothing happened, I
felt like she was on their side even though she said she wasn’t
Was no help at all for me.
Charging Party Representative Verbatim Responses
I was not allowed to have anyone present for representation or support.
I've never dealt with a worse mediator in my career, either privately or with the EEOC.
[Mediator] is unfit to mediate cases. He has a clear bias against employees. I have worked
with [Mediator] on numerous occasions as an investigator and found him to be outright
terrible toward my clients in those instances and this mediation was unfortunately no
different. In addition to being biased against employees, he also made a critical error that
destroyed the usefulness of the mediator's proposal. First, he presented the mediator's
proposal without first asking the parties if they were both willing to hear a mediator's
proposal. Second, he did not allow the defendant to make a last and final offer, but did the
mediator's proposal because "this mediation has already lasted hours and I am not allowed
to work more hours." Finally, because he didn't first ask for approval before making the
proposal, the parties could not then negotiate the material non-monetary terms that were at
issue without revealing whether or not they were willing to accept the mediator's proposal.
My client, the charging party needed an interpreter to participate. The mediator did not give
any pauses in speaking to allow for interpretation, nor instruct the
Respondent/Respondent's attorney to so. The mediator permitted me to speak briefly on my
client's behalf but when I invited my client to speak, the mediator cut him off in the middle
of speaking. She seemed impatient with waiting for interpretation.
She did not listen
The client should have had more opportunity to discuss her issues with the other side and was
side tracked into a separate room for the entire mediation.
The mediator elicited information from my client in the joint session which did not assist our
claims.
Respondent Verbatim Responses
At no time was I able to speak to the person making the complaint. I was not able to explain my
side directly with the complainant. I believe that only alone may have been able to resolve
her issues. For example, the last time the mediator spoke to me she said the complainant
had a couple of questions she could not understand and I could have answered if I had the
opportunity to do so. Now I may never be able to answer those questions, other than to an
investigator that may not relay them to the complainant and therefor may result in future
litigation.
I could not see the plaintiff. I was not permitted to question the plaintiff. I had no opportunity
to present a verbal rebuttal to these charges. I was not given ANY opportunity to present
evidence proving that I am innocent of these charges. I was not permitted to present the
testimony of witnesses that would have proven that I am innocent. I was not permitted to
show photographs proving my case. There was no judge. No jury. As a small businessman
my rights under the 7th amendment just flew out the window. This whole procedure is
nothing short of extortion.
The mediator was absolutely ineffective in the mediation process. She did little more that pass
limited information between the two parties. I have been on a few mediations prior and a
good mediator makes all of the difference in the world and ultimately leads to more cases
being resolved outside of the court. We were not able to come to terms in this case
primarily because of the lack of actual mediation on behalf of the court representative. She
was a very nice lady but very ineffective in her role as a mediator.
The mediator was really there as an extension of the charging party. She was not neutral and
she seemed more interested in allowing the charging party to be heard and understood.
The charging party was represented by counsel who was present so there was no need for
the mediator to always talk about the charging party.
When my summary was being presented the mediator requested documentation that I was
referencing. Once the documentation was shared on Zoom, the mediator then only wanted
a summary of what was sent. I didn't feel that the mediator was a neutral party.
Respondent Representative Verbatim Responses
Professional, very knowledgeable and did not rush anything.
The first question asked before mediation began was "Do you have authorization for a
settlement"? .... How can we even discuss settlement when the mediation discussions had
not even begun? Furthermore, both sides did not have the opportunity to ask questions to
the other side.
The mediator felt more like a shuttle diplomat and at times did not seem to understand the
relationship between the two respondents.
The Mediator was fair and did his job and the technology made it easier on the parties.
The mediator was overly aggressive with my clients (the respondents) and refused to listen to
their side of the events without interrupting them. It was clear that the mediator viewed my
clients' positions with contempt. It took me intervening and asking everyone to please
speak one at a time and dial down the rhetoric to make any progress.
We were surprised that the Mediator did not read our Mediation Statement. In addition, the
Mediator never contacted us beforehand to discuss procedures prior to the Mediation (such
as that he would not read a Mediation Statement).
Works fine.
Table 19. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “I (or my representative) had a full
opportunity to present my views during the mediation process.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 24 2% 16 4% 8 1%
Agree 339 29% 112 26% 227 30%
Strongly Agree 758 64% 266 61% 492 65%
Mean Rating * 4.5051 4.3764 4.5790

Strongly Agree
Table 20. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “At the beginning of the mediation, I
considered the mediator to be neutral.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 14 1% 7 2% 7 1%
Agree 385 33% 125 29% 260 35%
Strongly Agree 723 61% 267 62% 456 61%
Mean Rating * 4.5229 4.4872 4.5433

Strongly Agree
Table 21. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “The mediator remained neutral during
the session.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 31 3% 17 4% 14 2%
Agree 339 29% 102 24% 237 32%
Strongly Agree 734 62% 270 63% 464 62%
Mean Rating * 4.4699 4.3823 4.5199

Strongly Agree
Table 22. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “The mediator helped the parties develop
options for resolving the charge.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 42 4% 26 6% 16 2%
Agree 386 33% 109 25% 277 37%
Strongly Agree 591 50% 233 54% 358 48%
Mean Rating * 4.2534 4.2079 4.2794

Strongly Agree
Table 23a. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “Most of the options developed during
the mediation session were realistic solutions to resolving the charge.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 39 3% 20 5% 19 3%
Agree 382 32% 108 25% 274 37%
Strongly Agree 553 47% 221 52% 332 44%
Mean Rating * 4.1869 4.1616 4.2013

Strongly Agree
Table 23b. Participants’ Suggestions on Options to Resolve the Charge: Participants who
Strongly Disagreed/Disagreed to the Statement: “Most of the options developed during the
mediation session were realistic solutions to resolving the charge.”
Question: What options should have been explored in resolving the charge?
Charging Party Verbatim Responses

A reasonable payout amount.
Based upon the amount that I loss in commissions and the ridiculous amount paid to an
attorney who I feel did not do anything to earn the money, I am overall disappointed
and felt like I should have received more and should NOT have had to pay federal taxes
on something I didn't ask to happen to me. H&H should have paid attorney fees as well
as ALL federal taxes applicable. I am not happy with the overall outcome.
Further compensation
Leave my pay the way it was originally from beginning before the pay discrepancy.
The amounts involved.
I wasn’t given any options other than accept what was offered.
No options, there has been no ending to this issue.
None... the respondents repeatedly requested privileged information from me about my
claims.
The mediator did not help provide a realistic solution at all. He was pro company in my
eyes
The mediator did not offer any resolutions to the situation. I, the charging party and my
representative, presented solutions and were told that they were impossible to fulfill.
I feel as though the mediator didn’t want to hear any of the evidence or my side of the
charge. I feel like had she read the information I provided for my charge she wouldn’t
have been so partial to the other parties accusations
I never heard any resolution or opinion
It was apparent from the first counter offer made by defendant, and further solidified by
2nd counteroffer, that the plaintiff has no desire to settle. Would have liked the
mediator to recognize that, and decide early on, that this was an entire waste of time.
This became a fact-finding mission on behalf of plaintiff. The entire day was wasted
unnecessarily. This should have easily been recognized by mediator, and the mediation
should have ended in one hour verses 6 hours. The 2 sides were nowhere near in the
same vicinity of coming to agreement, yet the mediator pushed my side to accept the
offer. In this way, I felt he was not fair, just, or knowledgeable in the process at all. He
self-admittedly, has only been in this role for one year. He should study and train under
a more experienced mediator before handling another case solely.
Listening to both sides.
Respondent was not willing to negotiate realistic/mutually beneficial options.
She kept throwing out the threat that the other party was going to walk away and not
mediate in good faith
The fact of what all I have experienced during this time.
The mediator was at favor of the other parties not respecting my wishes and point of view
The option to investigate reports that HR had received complaints from me regarding being
treated differently because of my age. HR denied my ever making reports to them and
that was that as far as the mediator was concerned. Based on HR's denial of my making
age discrimination reports to them the mediator told me I should have never brought
the case against the party I charged.
The other party did not at any point try to meet me even halfway even though they did not
dispute the facts. Therefore, it was a waste of everyone’s time.
The respondent did not come to meditate the charge. They came to see how best to refute
the charge which I believe is not likely due to the substantiated evidence I have.
What final docs that would be outcome out of mediation and timing.
Charging Party Representative Verbatim Responses
Monetary compensation
Offering real money
Mediator should have listened instead of wasting our time
Mediators often take a back seat and just exchange numbers. They should use their
influence to be a sounding board to each side. So although neutral, weigh in with
experiences to be an objective voice that moves a hold out toward resolution. For
example, point out strengths, identify weaknesses, provide insight into how the EEOC
may respond during the investigation (for either side). Otherwise, the mediator is just
shuttling numbers back and forth.
The mediator seemed biased from the start and that her mind was made up about the case.
As a result, the solutions she was interested and/or willing to explore were limited.
The mediator should have pressed the defendant's more and given us her opinion regarding
the "sweet spot" for settling this matter. My client (rightfully) believed that the
mediator was on the defendant's side and didn't adequately taking into consideration
his arguments/facts.
The Mediator took the other side and did not appreciate the arguments I was making and
conveyed an attitude that he was not listening at all. He himself drafted the last edit of
the agreement. Ultimately the side he favored shorted the check by over [amount] in
violation of the agreement and he shockingly issued a statement on EEOC letterhead
that the settlement was satisfied. He gave a legal conclusion about a breached
agreement. He was terrible.
Respondent Verbatim Responses
The $$ figure that was discussed by the claimant and the basis for such were not
substantiated and it seemed the mediator was using that figure as a starting bargaining
tool.
The charging party refused to discuss the charge with the mediator; we don't know what
happened to have the charge be filed.
The Charging Party's expectations were unrealistic for the case.
The Mediator appeared to be nothing more than a messenger and did not come up with any
creative fair sounding solutions
The mediator had little to no skill. The whole process lasted 45 minutes and she had no
tricks to help the parties meet for consensus.
The person who filed the charge had unrealistic demands and was uncompromising, it was
not the mediators fault
The settlement asked for - in three rounds- was outrageous.
The two parties were too far apart to come up with any reasonable solutions for either
party. The procedure use did not allow for the two parties fully understand where the
other side was coming from.
Respondent Representative Verbatim Responses
Dropping the charge.
I felt like the mediator simply "walked offers" back and forth without attempting to get the
parties to agree. We started out very far apart and never got any closer.
Mediator wanted to end mediation sooner than necessary.
Only option was payment
The mediator appeared largely unfamiliar with the allegations and filings. The vast
majority of the claims in the charge were time-barred but the mediator was unfamiliar
with the applicable law and was therefore unable to explain that to the charging party
in a meaningful and credible way. Additionally, the charging party remains employed
and therefore had no lost wage claim. Nonetheless, the charging party proceeded to
make large 6-figure demands throughout the mediation without an articulable basis.
The only way the case could have settled was with a mediator with a good grasp of the
law who could have credibly explained to the charging party why their demands did not
match the facts and law, and we did not have that here unfortunately.
The mediator failed to properly assist my client in evaluating the strengths/weaknesses of
the charge and our standing. She was simply a currier for the charging party's offer.
The mediator should have taken a stronger position in trying to convince both parties to
resolve the matter and consider the costs of litigation compared to the costs of settling.
The mediator was excellent. However the other side was not participating in good faith, so
the "options" developed were not feasible or based in law or fact. The mediator
recognized this and tried to provide assistance, but could not convince the other side to
work with us in good faith.
The mediator's argumentative demeanor made developing resolution options difficult.
The other side was not being reasonable during mediation regarding their damages and
made it impossible to resolve this case. I did not feel like they came to mediation in
good faith.
We did not get that far as the claimant was pro per and did not understand the purpose of
mediation. He refused to make a demand.
We were not provided with remedy the charging party was seeking and therefore it was
difficult to develop options.
Table 24a. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “I am satisfied with the fairness of the
mediation.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 30 3% 20 5% 10 1%
Agree 365 31% 114 26% 251 33%
Strongly Agree 677 57% 241 56% 436 58%
Mean Rating * 4.3872 4.2361 4.4740

Strongly Agree
Table 24a. Reasons Given for Disagreeing with the Statement: “I am satisfied with the
fairness of the mediation.”
Question: Please explain why you disagree or strongly disagree with the statement: “I am
satisfied with the fairness of the mediation.”
Charging Party Responses:
After paying attorney 40%, prior sales manager lied as well as I am sure was paid off or told he would
lose his job if he told the truth. I also feel that my attorney could have done WAY more than what
they did to fight for my compensation package. Paying taxes on something I didn't ask for to
happen to me being fired and without employment, having to relocate and the loss of over 15,000
in payable commissions I am totally disappointed with the outcome and will if ever need
representation will never use this attorney nor will I participate in mediation because if I took it to
trial I would have received a much more substantial amount with an experienced corporate
attorney who is an expert at determining lies and call the liars out on their bs. I also had witnesses
that would have contributed to my case tremendously. But, I was done fighting and needed
closure, next time if there is one, I will do everything different. It is a shame that a single women
who was just performing her position above expectations was discriminated against and all I got
was $8,000 which did not even cover my loss of wages or my relocation expenses. The whole
career choice with [company name] was a total monetary loss. Poor business by [company name]
and I can guarantee I am not the only victim.
Again, it seemed the mediator wasn't bias
As I stated before it was like what I asked for was unrealistic and kept reminding me that everything
had to be proven which I was totally aware of I have witnesses and documentation of the
occurrences the company denied everything and I feel like she was on their side
Because there was no fairness even offered.
For example, I find it unfair for the Mediator to make a "reasonable person" standard determination,
stating what was not reasonable, but also be unwilling to give one example of what would have
been reasonable. I asked for this and I received a response suggesting that he did not want to deal
in hypotheticals.
I feel some key points may have been missed or looked past.
I feel the mediation was a waste of time and was only done so the respondents could gather
information.
I felt I wasn’t heard enough and was just being pressured to accept any payment and to be quiet.
I felt that the mediator wasn’t on my side and basically disagrees with me
I felt that the other party was able to use this mediation to further their own narrative and present me
in a negative light to the mediator with baseless claims and false representation of who they say I
am.
I was in the meeting for over 3 hours and most of that time I was in hold while the mediator was on the
other side discussing the case with the other parties. When mediator came back to me he had
already decided to end the mediation without me completely expressing my side.
It was not fair at all and he seem to favor the opposing side
It’s not fair that the city attempted to terminate me a week after mediation and all I’m told is to file
another charge and haven’t been contacted by the investor and didn’t hear from the mediator for
two months.
Mediator seemed biased
Mediator stated in disagreement with my statement. Much evidence was given to prove my case
Not given opportunity to show evidence.
Please see my last statement I felt sides were taken
Please see other comments
See past comment. Mediator tried to push us to accept plantiff offer when we were clearly way off,
from the get-go.
The mediator was not neutral and was argumentative with me
The charged had all the options to make claims denying wrong doing. I was told by the mediator that I
had a bad manager.....so what, lots of people have bad managers. My manager was more than just
a bad manager who in the past had been convicted of aggravated assault with a deadly weapon
against a household member....so he was NOT JUST ANOTHER BAD MANAGER. The mediator
had an answer for each item I tried to defend that was not in my favor.
The mediator convinced me of his neutrality during the first session. As a result, my hopes were high.
Prior to the second mediation, he called me to say that the employer was not willing to give an
inch.
The mediator did not seem impartial, she was not a good listener, and did not offer any solutions at no
time during the mediation. It appeared to me that she did not take my case seriously.
the opposing party showed no good faith so it went nowhere
too much to put here.
Up until the day before the mediation, I was told the other party was attending without council and it
would be a chance to work together to resolve the issue. The day before, I found out that the other
party was bringing council and the COO. This was after the mediator had relayed that I could
obtain council, but that attorneys usually get in the way and the respondent wasn’t being
represented by an attorney. I feel I was I’ll prepared because of the information and persuasion to
not obtain council.
Charging Party Representative Responses:
As I said before, [name] is very biased towards employees and I do not say this lightly. He should not
be a mediator. I found him to be an awful investigator, but as an investigator he had far less effect
on the matter. Second, he made significant errors relating to the mediator's proposal. Third, when
I pointed out the error, he got angry and defensive. None of his traits are appropriate for a
mediator's temperament. He should not be mediating.
As previously stated, given the proven facts of the case, the mediator should have pressed the
defendant's to come up with more money to resolve this matter. My client was extremely upset with
the settlement offer, as was I. As a result, our firm decided to drop this case.
He did not press for the settlement language that we required. We worked in the only safeguard
against them acting in bad faith, which they did, fraudulently, in sending her settlement check
through payroll and deducting an outrageous amount shorting her settlement check for over $$$ .
He then issued a statement they were compliant with the terms of the agreement when they were
not. He could get the EEOC in trouble sued as a co conspirator in the Fraud of the other side. He
has created liability for the EEOC.
I felt overwhelmed by my employer representative and their attorney.
It was very important for my client to be able to briefly share his experience and he was not allowed to
do so. My impression was this was due to the mediator's impatience with interpretation.
I've never experienced a worse mediator in my career as an attorney. She really should not be doing
mediations for the EEOC as it is a disservice to the parties and reflects poorly on the mediation
process.
Mediator seemed to lean toward the employer.
She was ineffective and clueless
There were a couple of reasonable things we requested to make the situation right. However it was
denied. It was not the fault of [name] at all. She tried her best to try to help!
Respondent Participant Responses:
Based on the credentials required to be a mediator, it was clear within the first few hours of the case
that there was not a case and if we moved forward into the court the charge would not stand.
Regardless of this we were pushed towards a monetary settlement I complete the mediation and
close the case. I do not believe that is how employment law is intended to operate.
Claimant's representative had not signed and summited the mediation documents in order to be able to
attend the mediation. EEOC rep confirmed during joint session that he had not received the signed
participation agreement from claimant's representative. We should have been notified which
parties were going to be on video or not using video. Claimant and claimant's rep knew that they
could submit documents to mediator and had done so and were prepared to submit more. I had
contacted the mediator well before the meeting asking about submitting documents and he did not
respond nor answer the question. I had to email again right before the meeting to ask about the
documents. He replied back at day of the mediation meeting with a "thank you for the email" and
asked that myself and attorney sign participation agreements which we had already done weeks
prior. He still did not answer my question in his late response. This was false accusations from an
employee who has a record of filing harassment claims at each of her employers, but mediation
was rushed and limited that I felt I did not get the chance to prove our innocence. Mediator had
scheduled another mediation during the time slot that was allotted to us. Then asked the next
mediation appt to push theirs back which rushed our mediation to be completed in the single
session.
I do not believe the mediator accurately passed along our information to the defendant. When she
would repeat what we said, to confirm she had it right, she wouldn't. She also said, "I shouldn't be
telling you this, but..." which made me wonder what she was telling the defendant about our
discussion.
I had to have documentation for proof of the charges against us, but when asked for documentation of
proof for the charges brought it was not required and settlement was made.
Plaintiff refused to use a computer/camera so remained hidden through the entire process. No Judge.
No jury. Not permitted to even question the plaintiff. Not permitted to present evidence
(photographs / witness testimony) proving that I am innocent. This whole operation is nothing
short of an extortion mill. Irrefutable proof that the US Government considers the small
businessman to be a clueless rube to be fleeced at will.
She seemed to be leaning
We settled simply to avoid lengthy and costly litigation. The charges were bogus and unfounded. The
plaintiff had a skillful attorney who manipulated the Mediator and proceedings very well.
Respondent Representative Responses:
EEOC Mediation essentially operates as legal extortion. The merit of the employer's case is virtually
irrelevant. The only issue is what will the employer pay to avoid having to defend a meritless
lawsuit. The mediator, while intended to be neutral, should interject when it is obvious the
charging party's case is frivolous. The attorney for the charging party even stated he would file
multiple lawsuits against the employer and would "paper us to death," or the employer could buy
its way out of that nightmare for an expensive nuisance value settlement.
Mediator had little or no knowledge about the requirement of the charges.
The mediator appears to be in favor of the charging party and wants us to settle via mediation with
what her demands are. Also advised us if we didn't settle this could get messy if it goes to
investigation.
The time that we spent isolated in breakout or individual discussion was too long. We should have had
some person to person dialogue to express needs and concerns. The mediator did not facilitate any
discussion. She said she had 30 years of experience! I did not feel she was a neutral mediator or
effective.
Table 25. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “I am satisfied with the results of the
mediation.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %

Disagree 90 8% 42 10% 48 6%
Agree 344 29% 103 24% 241 32%
Strongly Agree 456 39% 154 36% 302 40%
Mean Rating * 3.8763 3.6425 4.0093

Strongly Agree
Table 26a. Attempt to Resolve the Issue with Employer Prior to Filing a Charge
Question: For Charging Party: Did you first attempt to resolve the issues in your charge with
your employer prior to filing a charge with the EEOC?
Charging Party
# %
Total number responding 215 100%
Yes (Attempted to resolve the issue with employer prior to filing a

charge) 146 68%
No (Did not attempt to resolve the issue with employer prior to
filing a charge) 69 32%
Table 26b. Attempt to Resolve the Issue with Employer Prior to Filing a Charge – Persons
Contacted
Question: For Charging Parties who attempted to resolve the issue prior to filing a charge with
the EEOC: Who did you speak with?
Charging Party
# %
Total number who attempted to resolve the issue with their
employer prior to filing a charge with the EEOC 146
Human Resources Department/Head 61 42%

Manager/Supervisor 35 24%
Company attorney/counsel 17 12%
Management/Employer 16 11%
Union Representative/Union 5 3%
Others (Unspecified company positions) 35 24%
Table 26c. Attempt to Resolve the Issue with Employer Prior to Filing a Charge – Actions
Taken by the Employer
Question: For Charging Parties who attempted to resolve the issue prior to filing a charge with
the EEOC: What specific actions did your employer take to resolve the issue?
Charging Party
# %
Total number who attempted to resolve the issue with their
employer prior to filing a charge with the EEOC 146
None/No action taken 87 60%

Investigation 12 8%
Terminated/Retaliated 11 8%
Offered to settle/money 5 3%
Mediation 4 3%
Others 17 12%
Table 26d. Reasons for Not Attempting to Resolve the Issue with Employer Prior to Filing
a Charge
Question: For Charging Parties who did not attempt to resolve the issue prior to filing a charge
with the EEOC: Why did you not attempt to resolve the issue with your employer prior to filing
a charge with the EEOC?
Lack of communication/cooperation of employer
The employer was, has been, and is still being very obstinate and uncooperative on other issues in
the past and with present issues dealing with anything in regards to me. And the employer DID
blatantly LIE UNDER OATH at a previous Unemployment Compensation Appeal Hearing that
occurred prior to this mediation. And DID LIE again during this mediation process.
They didn’t want to talk about anything or comments that I had
Unable to speak with them
Was not going to talk to an employee that ignores sexual harassment and wrongful terminated me.
They didn’t care to know what happened during my time there
Didn't think they were open to it
I was going to try to resolve the issue with the employer. I reached out to the via email. They
eventually got back to me, but it was only about 10 days from the mediation date, so I decided
to wait for the formal mediation so it would be covered by the confidentiality agreement.
My employer was not concerned with my issue
My voice was never heard when I was an employee, I was always brushed off when try to make a
complaint.
No contact
They did not seem interested in resolving
They basically told me to get off the property and didn't want to talk about it
They would not listen to me
I wasn't sure there was a way to do that considering the nature of this case.
I knew it wouldn't be in my best interest.
It was clear to me after over 2 years of internal discussions and attempting to change the trajectory
of the company from inside they were not interested in altering their behavior
It was not an option
I had previously filed a charge and they weren’t being helpful since the beginning.
Because there was no opportunity available to resolve the issue with my employer, they deny any
contact with me. Also there was no help from the [Government Employer] (Georgia).
I was never allowed to speak to the Warden. At that time he was not the warden for my cases.
My employer refused to speak with me
Employee is no longer with the company: fired/terminated/left the company
My employer had furloughed me some five months prior to the charge. In my job as chief strategist
for banking & payments - I reported to the CEO, Worldwide President and many times did
work directly for the Chairman of the Company. Thus, I had often seen their behind-the-scenes
methods, tactics and slander when others had either filed or had brought up the same
complaints; as well as I witnessed their retaliations -- so I was anxious as to how to put up with
it or manage my charge, without an attorney. Thus I sought an attorney out first, then followed
the attorney's advice.
Did not speak with them d/t being terminated
I felt I was wrongly terminated based on discrimination.
I reported to them what had happened to me and as soon as cops were involved they suspended me
then fired me
I was already terminated
I was fired and not given the option to.
I was fired due to discrimination, so I was unable to speak with the employer prior to filing the
charge.
I was terminated
I was terminated.
They fired me
Was fired and could not contact.
My employer made it clear that they didn't want me working there.
Because they refuse to rehire me
Because I had already left the company and they argued that there was no evidence that supported
my case
I had resigned, because I had 7 Interviews and was no. Five on the list on the position that I was
interviewing for. No one gave me any explanation why I was not chosen for any of the positions
with over 40+ years of experience.
Lack of trust with HR/authority/company
Because those that had authority to do so we're the main ones involved in the offense that led to the
charge filed
The HR director was part of the issue
I did not trust their HR department and management. I had no one to go to.
I don't trust the agency I worked for to be fair or honest.
Because I was harassed, and I did not feel comfortable speaking with the company
Retaliation
Hiring issue
The respondent was not my employer. The inquiry was regarding a hiring decision.
Not employed by the company
Complaint was not with an employer--rather, the potential employee's recruiter.
I am not an employee, I was a candidate for a job.
Failure to hire case.
Other reasons provided
Trusted EEOC process better.
Too much hostility from the employer regarding charges filed against them
I couldn't solve this issue because [company name] was on lockdown.
They asked for mediation.
I went through my attorney
Because my employer denied being at fault.
I charged them with unfair discrimination. I had tried to get reasonable accommodations but my
employer denied them.
Table 27. Did Participants Know What They Wanted Going into the Mediation?
Question: Going into the mediation, did you know what you wanted to obtain from this
mediation?

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Yes (Participant knew what they

wanted) 1066 93% 383 93% 683 94%
No (Participant did not know what
they wanted) 76 7% 29 7% 47 6%
Table 28a. Participants’ Expectations of Mediation Outcome – Charging Party and Party
Representative
Question: What did you expect to obtain from this mediation?
Charging Party and

Charging Parties and Party Representatives who knew Party Representative
what they wanted going into the mediation # %
Total responding 378 100.0%
Monetary offer 158 42%

Non-monetary offer 13 3%
A combination of monetary and non-monetary offer 207 55%
Table 28b. Participants’ Expectations Compared to Mediation Outcome – Charging Party

and Party Representative
Question: Did you obtain what you wanted going into the mediation?
Charging Party and

Charging Parties and Party Representatives who knew Party Representative
what they wanted going into the mediation # %
I received nothing of what I wanted 122 33%

I received some of what I wanted 119 32%
I received much or a majority of what I wanted 109 29%
I received everything I wanted 25 7%
Table 28c. Monetary Demand – Charging Party and Party Representative
Question: If you obtained nothing from this mediation and were asking for money, what was
your monetary demand?
Charging Party and

Party Representative
# %
Total number of charging parties and party representatives
who expected monetary offer but obtained nothing 39 100.0%
$5,000 or less - -
From $5,001 to $10,000 2 5%
From $10,001 to $15,000 - -
From $15,001 to $20,000 1 3%
From $20,001 to $30,000 3 8%
From $30,001 to $40,000 3 8%
From $40,001 to $50,000 5 13%
From $50,001 to $75,000 3 8%
From $75,001 to $100,000 5 13%
From $100,001 to $200,000 11 28%
From $200,001 to $500,000 5 13%
Over $500,000 1 3%
Table 28d. Request for Non-monetary Benefit from Employer – Charging Party and Party
Representative
Question: You answered that you obtained nothing from this mediation did you ask the employer
for something that did not require employer payment of money to you?
Charging Party and

# %
Yes, I asked for something other than money from the

employer 6 15%
No, I did not seek any nonmonetary benefit 33 85%
Table 28e. Employer’s Offer of Non-monetary Benefit – Charging Party and Party
Representative
Question: You answered that you obtained nothing from this mediation did the employer offer
you any nonmonetary benefit?
Charging Party and

# %
Yes, a nonmonetary offer was made that I rejected in favor of

not settling the charge 13 33%
No [a nonmonetary offer was not made] 26 67%
Table 28f. Employer’s Offer of Monetary Benefit – Charging Party and Party
Representative
Question: You answered that you obtained nothing from this mediation did the employer offer
you any money to settle the case?
Charging Party and

# %
who expected nonmonetary offer but obtained nothing 6 100.0%
Yes, a monetary offer was made 4 67%

No, no money was offered 2 33%
Table 29a. Participants’ Expectations of Mediation Outcome – Respondent and Party
Representative
Question: What did you expect to obtain from this mediation?
Respondent and Party

Respondents and Party Representatives who knew what they Representative
wanted going into the mediation # %
Resolve situation where we made a mistake 13 2%

Resolve situation to avoid monetary costs with EEOC 121 18%
Resolve situation to avoid further use of organizational time 380 57%
Resolve situation as concerned about fairness of EEOC process 27 4%
Resolve situation to continue this employment relationship 50 8%
Verbatim responses:
Avoid further litigation/further cost; financial consideration 22 3%
Understanding the charge; getting information/clarification; hear
both sides 18 3%
Resolution 8 1%
Ensure fairness; fairness to both sides 4 1%
Possible settlement 3 0.5%
Discussion/explanation 3 0.5%
Continued employment 3 0.5%
Amicable parting 2 0.3%
Prove charge is false/no wrongdoing 2 0.3%
Other reasons 8 1%
Table 29b. Participants’ Expectations Compared to Mediation Outcome – Respondent and
Question: Did you obtain what you wanted going into the mediation?
Respondent and Party

Respondents and Party Representatives who knew what Representative
they wanted going into the mediation # %
I received nothing of what I wanted 131 20%

I received some of what I wanted 163 25%
I received much or a majority of what I wanted 237 36%
I received everything I wanted 133 20%
Table 29c. Monetary Demand Difference – Respondent and Party Representative
Question: If this case was not resolved due to an inability to reach a monetary settlement, how
far apart were the parties when the mediation ended?
Respondents and Party Representatives who knew what Respondent and Party
they wanted going into the mediation and whose cases Representative
involved monetary settlement # %
Total responding 222 100%
$500 or less 2 0.9%

From $501.00 - $1,000 3 1.4%
From $1,001 to $3,000 5 2.3%
From $3,001 to $5,000 8 3.6%
From $5,001 to $10,000 12 5.4%
From $10,001 to $20,000 30 13.5%
From $20,001 to $50,000 50 22.5%
From $50,001 to $100,000 43 19.4%
Over $100,000 46 20.7%
Not sure 23 10.4%
Table 29d. Factors that Prevented Party from Receiving Part or All of What was Expected
– Respondent and Party Representative
Question: You answered that you obtained nothing from this mediation, please identify any
factors that were involved.
Total number of respondents and party representatives who obtained

nothing of what they wanted 131
Non-substantive process issues such as technology, lack of time, missing key

party or person to continue or other factors that prevented us from settling
the case. 2 2%
Charging Party sought excessive amount of money 114 87%
Charging Party made a non-monetary demand we could not meet 17 13%
Mediator interfered with opportunity to settle 3 2%
We were not prepared for what happened at mediation 3 2%
Other (See verbatim responses below.) 19 15%
Charging party rejected our non-monetary offer and did not counter-offer.
I was expecting to mediate this out. The pre-mediation offer was 150k and then we got to
mediation and the demand went to 500k, then down to 290k, the mediator should have told
them it would be wise to get back to their original position.
The charging party did not accept any of our attempts at a resolution
The charging party did not agree with our settlement offer.
We thought we had a solution but the charging party backed out unexpectedly over the form of
payment of the settlement (3 checks vs 2 checks).
Charging party did not sign agreement
The Complainant was not satisfied with the settlement and indicated not all her requests were met
in the settlement agreement. As a result, she will not sign agreement.
Charging party did not come prepared with what he wanted out of the mediation
Charging party did not identify or make a demand.
Charging party refused to disclose what the basis of the charge was.
Charging party is uninformed about the situation, and even upon explanation, has unrealistic
demands
Charging Party's attorney hung up on the mediator and called off the mediation
Charging Party attended but then refused to engage in any reasonable discussion
Charger did not have a solid case and discuss quickly discovered at the beginning of mediation.
Charging party claimed discrimination was the reason for her termination, when in fact she was
terminated for workplace violence and threats.
The charging party would not cooperate with the Mediator and it was moved to the next step.
Mediator said her job was not to discover or discuss the facts. I don't know how you get the two
parties together if you don't help them agree on (stipulate) facts and evidence and see
likelihood of their claim being successful through the EEOC process.
The mediator failed to properly assist my client in evaluating the strengths/weaknesses of the
charge and our standing. She was simply a currier for the charging party's offer.
The process did not allow for my side to fully explain our position to the other side. This was not
the fault of the mediator, who did the best she could.
Table 30a. Benefits Obtained from Mediation – Charging Party
Question: Identify below any benefits you obtained from your mediation
Charging Party
# %
Total number of charging parties 225
I was able to address my concerns on an equal basis with those present. 66 29%
I obtained money. 113 50%
I obtained another needed work benefit. 7 3%
I learned more about what happened to me in my workplace. 28 12%
I was able to keep my job. 8 4%
I obtained a commitment from my employer about how I will be treated
at work. 6 3%
I obtained a job reference. 20 9%
I realized that I may not have a case. 3 1%
My employer agreed not to contest my unemployment benefits or
otherwise interfere with my receipt of unemployment. 14 6%
Verbatim responses:
Nothing, no agreement, not settled 13 6%
Change in company policy/practice 9 4%
Received non-monetary benefit: offered position, reverse reason for
termination, unemployment benefits 5 2%
Able to present my view/side; learned the position of employer 5 2%
Other benefits 6 3%
Table 30b. Benefits Obtained from Mediation – Respondent
Question: Identify below any benefits you obtained from your mediation
Respondent
# %
Total number of respondents 271
We were able to explain why we believe we did not violate the law. 178 66%
We were able to demonstrate our respect for the Charging Party and
their perspective. 114 42%
We were able to close this case and move on. 160 59%
We were able to correct a misunderstanding. 26 10%
We were able to improve our relationship with a continuing employee. 15 6%
We were able to improve our relationship with a terminated employee. 17 6%
We discovered and recognized improvements or actions that we will
implement going forward. 46 17%
We learned valuable information related to overall operation of the
business. 33 12%
We were able to demonstrate concern for our community stakeholders
beyond this individual charge. 20 7%
Other benefits: None, baseless charge; learned other party’s
intention/allegation 9 3%
Table 31a. COVID-19’s Economic Impact on Respondents’ Monetary Offer Going into
Mediation
Question: Has the economic impact from COVID-19 resulted in your organization coming to
EEOC mediation with:
Respondent
# %
Total number responding 252 100.0%
Less monetary flexibility 30 12%

More monetary flexibility - -
About the same 115 46%
Not applicable 107 42%
Table 31b. COVID-19’s Economic Impact on Respondents’ Monetary Offer Going into
Mediation – Verbatim Responses
Question: In what way do you have less monetary flexibility in mediation as a result of the
economic impact of COVID-19?
Our company has been greatly affected by the pandemic.

Our industry has been devastated.
Business losses due to increased Covid medical claims for enrollees.
COVID 19 caused an approximate 40% loss of business from the previous year. All company
funds went to keeping team members employed, and all other expenses were cut.
As a non-profit organization we have to be mindful of financial resources.
We had to cancel both of our fundraising events due to COVID-19, so less income for expenses
such as this.
We have fewer funders and as a nonprofit have less flexible funding.
Covid and all the remaining challenges to the labor pool have left me with limited labor and an
inability to recapture sales.
Declined sales.
Less overall revenue/budget to spend on medication.
Less sales = less money viable for dispute resolution
Our charger was terminated due to lack of revenue, yet it took us to mediation for money.
Our overall net revenues have declined substantially during COVID due to increased costs and
reduced revenues. This limited our ability to provide the high level of monetary damages
requested by the charging party.
Our profit margins have become minimal due to client downsizing and in some cases bankruptcies.
Our staffing issues have also made overtime a big issue with our payroll. Meeting payroll is
our cash flow priority and there just isn't much left to negotiate settlements.
Revenue has decreased
Revenue is down and expenses overall have skyrocketed including employee wages
We have less children. I say roughly a 3rd less children in attendance. We have to pay staff every
time we close down, most time its the whole center. If it weren't for state assistance, we would
have shut down by Aug 2020. We open a new center in [site] but it is not full and is losing
money. We have to credit private pay clients when shut down. The cost of PPE supplies,
training, keeping ratios and keeping up with minimum wage increases yearly have taken a toll
on child care business all over the United States.
Financial situation is weaker. We have less money.
Financials of the organization negatively impacted by Covid
Our business has been severely impacted financially by the pandemic
We received no government relief funding - therefore my company has struggled significantly to
stay afloat. We do not have the financial ability to negotiate due to financial strain.
We had zero funds for this mediation and did not anticipate paying a single penny to this false
claim. We opened in January 2021 and immediately felt the effects of Covid. I am guessing this
employee also felt the effects and resorted to providing false information to get hired and then
intentionally premediated her steps so that she could file a false claim later on.
Table 31c. Video Mediation’s Economic Impact on Respondents’ Monetary Offer Going
into Mediation, Compared to In-Person Mediation
Question: I find that in mediation by video my organization tends to offer [compared to in-
person mediation]::
Respondent
# %
Total number responding 251 100.0%
More money than for in-person mediation 4 2%

Less money than for in-person mediation 6 2%
About the same 116 46%
Not applicable 125 50%
Table 32. Attorneys’ Opinions on COVID-19’s Economic Impact on their Clients’
Monetary Offer Going into Mediation
Question: Has the economic impact from COVID-19 resulted in your [clients] coming to EEOC
mediation with:
Charging Party
Attorneys Respondent
All Attorneys Attorneys
# % # % # %
Less monetary flexibility 7 1% 3 2% 4 1%

More monetary flexibility 77 14% 14 8% 63 17%
About the same 261 48% 58 32% 203 56%
Not applicable 200 37% 109 59% 91 25%
Table 33. Case Status
Question: Please identify the status of your mediation session.

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Completed and the case is

resolved. 575 51% 192 47% 383 53%
Completed and waiting for e-
signature. 177 16% 61 15% 116 16%
Mediation is ongoing. 66 6% 31 8% 35 5%
Completed but the case is not
resolved/impasse. 313 28% 126 31% 187 26%
Table 34a. Factors/Reasons Preventing Case Resolution (Ongoing Mediations or
Completed Mediations but Cases are Unresolved/Impasse
Question: If the mediation did not resolve the charge, why do you think there was no resolution?
Charging
Party and Respondent
Participants in Ongoing Mediation or All Party and Party
Completed Unresolved/Impasse Cases Participants Representative Representative
# % # % # %
Total responding 379 157 222
The other party was not sincere in resolving

the case. 163 43% 96 61% 67 30%
The options developed were unacceptable to
me. 64 17% 39 25% 25 11%
We had to cut the mediation short because of
an unplanned event. 1 0% 1 1% 0 0%
I made a final offer, and the other party did not
accept. 108 28% 31 20% 77 35%
No final offer was made by the other side. 29 8% 20 13% 9 4%
There was an agreement, but it must be
approved by a decision maker who was not
at the mediation. 7 2% 5 3% 2 1%
There was a non-monetary issue that we could
not resolve. 55 15% 26 17% 29 13%
The parties could not agree on the amount of
money to resolve the case. 203 54% 77 49% 126 57%
The issues of reinstatement to employment
could not be resolved. 18 5% 7 4% 11 5%
We needed more time. 24 6% 11 7% 13 6%
No money was offered. 27 7% 15 10% 12 5%
Another issue prevented resolution. (See table
below.) 53 14% 26 17% 27 12%
Table 34b. Factors/Reasons Preventing Case Resolution (Ongoing Mediations or
Completed Mediations but Cases are Unresolved/Impasse – Verbatim Responses
Question: If the mediation did not resolve the charge, why do you think there was no resolution?
Charging Party and Representative

The opposing side attorney didn't come to mediation with the goal of resolving. Not sure the
motivation then to request mediation.
Their attorney wanted to wait and see what CHRO involvement would be
Respondent was not represented by counsel who had experience in discrimination matters.
the respondent's attorney needed to investigate the claims further based on information learned at
mediation
The persons present did not have actual authority to settle the matter for more than nuisance value.
I requested they change the termination to layoff or resign and they offered me 20k only . It was
more important to me to fix the unfair termination
We are awaiting proof of a claim and if provided we will agree to settle at a certain amount
We are still negotiating outside of the mediation process and the mediator has become an
impediment by trying to force his time constraints on the parties.
I was able to review papers from employment I had been asking for and were never sent to me. I
discovered papers that were falsified and had my signature forged on them. These papers were
what they were using to support their argument.
My employer refused/failed to discipline the female supervisor that sexually harassed me.
My manager failed to tell which supervisor she said the horrible things to. Human Resource didn’t
investigate any further
Employer was not honest with answers based on paperwork, and personnel file.
They violated the terms of the agreement. They agreed to pay the client $7,700 and only paid
$4,876.17 after absurdly running a settlement check through payroll and deducting completely
inappropriate things for a fired non employee. Outrageous.
The case was returned for formal investigation and ongoing action.
Mediator was an obstacle that we could not overcome
The mediator was an impediment to resolving the case.
Parties had different views of the facts/evidence of this case.
The other party had failed to adequately prepare
The [other party's] Attorney representing the county does not believe the charge.... which the
mediator told them was valid and encouraged them to reconsider.
Why has this case dragged on for so long? The employer just waits and makes it harder to resolve.
the other party did not engage in negotiation, nor did it appear that they had any intention. They
more appeared to participate in an effort to learn facts about the case.
The contract is risky and could be deceptive / harmful. I'm still trying to get an attorney to review
the contract, before signing.
Other party pulled out of mediation
Other party unwilling to negotiate, offer or agree to any requests to resolve.
The alleged discriminator who was the subject of the Charge of Discrimination was also the
Corporate Representative. He stated he had full authority and that his company and its
attorneys knew of the charge but he did not appear with any attorney.
The respondent was awaiting notice that the [company] investigation and had assumed it would
have been completed by the scheduled mediation date, but it was not and as such the mediation
was continued until the investigation is completed
Respondent and Representative
Charging Party's attorney hung up on the mediator
Complainant appeared at the mediation without her attorney.
Decision maker not available to give authorization to make final offer. Optimistic that authority
will be given and case will resolve.
While an agreement was reached, the other party was not held responsible for signing of the
agreement as agreed to in mediation.
The charging party was not willing to negotiate or offer any break down as to why they were
asking for so much more money than what we calculated
The resolution was complex. A final offer by the employer was made today. The charging party will
accept or decline the offer tomorrow.
The CP did not provide information as to what was discrimination, therefore we were unable to
offer taxpayer dollars to resolve a complaint which has no merit. Had the CP provided
documentation/evidence of wrongdoing we likely would have resolved.
The other party was not in agreement with the final offer from the City
We are still working on language for a nonmonetary issue. I expect a resolution.
We had strong documentation facts of the case. Charging party had no evidence just opinions or
perceptions. If our facts were true, they had no case. They did not dispute any of our facts with
any evidence. No effort was made to seek agreement on facts.
Charge was resolved at conclusion of mediation by the parties but before MSA and side agreement
were signed, charging party elected not to go through with settlement she had agreed to.
Poor mediation skills on the part of the court representative.
The mediator had not reviewed the documents we submitted prior to the session so she could not
adequately negotiate based upon our evidence.
The charging party did not want to pay taxes on the money that was offered.
The parties also did not agree on all of the facts presented by the other side and disputed the legal
basis of the charge.
Charging party did not make an offer and withdrew from mediation.
Claimant did not know what he wanted out of the mediation
It is still ongoing & likely to be resolved.
The parties are continuing to try and resolve the dispute, but we needed some additional outside
information (in this case, a medical examination and recommendation)
The other party stated they wanted to pursue becoming a possible test-case for changing or
interpreting the applicable laws regarding this situation
The mediator told my representative that the claimant was in agreement with our final offer, but
the claimant later said they were uncomfortable signing documents because something had
been added that she did not approve (non-disparagement).
Employee expressed desire to pursue their case and apply their legal knowledge to obtain
resolution
Charging party refuses to believe facts showing that no discrimination occurred
The Charging Party was facing the discipline process at the time that had not yet been decided on.
It was too early in the process to craft a settlement that would be acceptable to the employer;
we discovered we needed to look at further evidence.
We are still trying to resolve language in the agreement.
Charging party did not want to settle the claim.
Table 34c. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “I believe that progress was made toward
resolution of this claim.” (Ongoing Mediations or Completed Mediations but Cases
are Unresolved/Impasse)

Participants in Ongoing and Party Party
Mediation or Completed All Participants Representative Representative
Unresolved/Impasse Cases # % # % # %

Disagree 71 19% 23 15% 48 22%
Agree 94 25% 37 24% 57 26%
Strongly Agree 30 8% 13 8% 17 8%
Mean Rating 2.8382 2.6516 2.9685

Table 34d. Follow-up Activities/Plans (Ongoing Mediations or Completed Mediations but
Cases are Unresolved/Impasse
Question: Please check if you plan to follow-up with any of the following:

Participants in Ongoing Mediation and Party Party
or Completed Unresolved/Impasse All Participants Representative Representative
Cases # % # % # %
We will wait for completion of EEOC

investigation and consider
settlement later. 165 46% 69 46% 96 46%
We have scheduled another EEOC
mediation session or follow-up
settlement discussion. 29 8% 13 9% 16 8%
The parties will meet again, but outside
of EEOC. 29 8% 13 9% 16 8%
We will wait until a lawsuit is filed and
consider settlement after all the
evidence is seen during the lawsuit
process. 66 18% 24 16% 42 20%
Other (See list below) 69 19% 30 20% 39 19%
Table 34e. Follow-up Activities/Plans (Ongoing Mediations or Completed Mediations but
Cases are Unresolved/Impasse – Verbatim Responses
Question: Please check if you plan to follow-up with any of the following: Other, please specify.

We are amending Charge to include Franchisor, [Company name] corporation because we do not
believe that the franchisee (Respondent) is acting in good faith at mediation. Mediator
concurred on lack of good faith of Respondent.
I need another meeting
Waiting to schedule another EEOC mediation session.
Mediation will remain open to allow the parties to exchange some information.
The Charging Party would be open to further settlement discussions
The parties are continuing to negotiate outside of the EEOC mediation process.
I am confident that the EEOC will find probable cause
I will wait for completion of EEOC investigation and then consider what my options are.
The employer is dishonest with the whole process. Nothing was accomplished. My bar was very
low for a settlement. Now an investigation will take place because they claim no responsibility.
We intend to request that the EEOC bring its investigatory resources to bear in this matter.
Again, the contract is risky and could be deceptive / harmful. Again, I’m still trying to get an
attorney to review the contract, before signing.
I will continue to follow up with my attorney and will not settle until the other side agrees with us
on something.
The Charging Party intends to continue to attempt to settle the matter, but has received no signs
from Respondent that informal resolution will be feasible.
Not sure
Nothing has been settled.
Pending agreement of counter on documentation, consider action.
Just waiting for the ongoing investigation and hopefully we agree to a resolution and come to an
understanding of the settlement
I was told by the mediator that I had no case so I settled.
A Federal suit was already filed in July - Whistleblower, discrimination, and retaliation
concerning state laws, [company] requested a continuance until after mediation. If EEOC does
not wish to prosecute, the charges will be amended to the existing case
I plan to file suit regardless of the EEOC investigation. The EEOC is understaffed & does not
conduct thorough investigations. Likewise, the respondent, in bad faith, used the EEOC
mediation to gather privileged information or potential evidence
To my understanding, we are awaiting a "right to sue" letter from the EEOC. Then my attorney
will contact [name] who will take my case on, on a contingency basis.
We may look into legally resolving this issue.
[Name] the ADA Mediator has said he is sitting on the charge. It should be sent to Legal for
enforcement. We will file an amended charge or a new one if we have to, its still timely and
also a DC Superior Court action. Their conduct was in total bad fait
We have already requested the NORTS. We will try to negotiate directly with the employer before
filing suit, but may need to move into litigation.
We will request a right to sue letter and litigate against the former employer
Haven’t heard back from most recent charge after several attempts
We may use the EEOC mediator again, depending on the response from the Respondent
Will not be representing charging party further.
As previously stated, our firm is no longer representing the client. He will be seeking new counsel
or will be handling the claim himself.
Choose not to answer
We are not closed to meeting again but nothing is scheduled or currently planned.
We are open to another EEOC mediation session, but this has not been scheduled.
We will complete the position statement and work through the process
We will move forward with defending against the charge.
Continuing with EEOC process
Mediation is ongoing
We will continue to communicate with the plaintiff's attorney
Just finalizing the agreement with opposing counsel.
It has moved to investigation.
We will wait for completion of EEOC investigation only
We will wait for the outcome of the investigation
We will wait until the EEOC completes the investigation and finds that the claims of the charging
party were false.
We will wait for completion of EEOC investigation which should absolve us of claimed actions
We will wait for completion of EEOC investigation.
We will wait for completion of the EEOC investigation but remain open to the possibility of trying
to reach a settlement at all times.
The mediator asked to keep it open for a few more days
charging party has notified us they are now willing to consider final offer
Position Statement
Will submit EEOC position statement
After the employer makes an ultimate internal disposition of the related discipline and the EEOC
completes the investigation, we will reevaluate settlement.
Waiting for former employee next steps.
We will wait until a lawsuit is filed then go to trial if necessary, the case is without merit
If the settlement is approved, parties will communicate to finalize settlement agreement.
mediator following up with other side
Mediator left case open to settle until September 17, 2021. After that, it will go back to
investigation process and we will submit a position statement. I am hopeful that charge will be
dismissed.
The parties expect the case will resolve tomorrow after charging party reviews defendant's final
offer.
Waiting next steps from [name] adjuster
We are one week time for the charging party to reconsider the company's offer
We made a last and final offer that must be accepted by a date certain and, if it is not, the offer is
withdrawn and the file will be transferred back to the investigator.
We will wait until charging parties takes next step
We will respond to the charge by the EEOC deadline
I have not been notified of next steps at this time
We will oppose this claim
No follow-up action with respect to settlement is currently planned.
No further action considered.
Not sure
Undecided
Undetermined
Table 35a. Willingness to Participate in EEOC Mediation Program
Question: Do you agree or disagree with this statement: If I had a future case before the
EEOC, I would be willing to participate in the EOOC mediation program.

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Yes [Willing to participate in the

EEOC mediation program] 1084 96% 377 92% 707 98%
No [Not willing to participate in
the EEOC mediation program] 51 4% 34 8% 17 2%
Table 35b. Reasons for Participants’ Unwillingness to Participate in EEOC Mediation in
the Future – Verbatim Responses
Question: Please tell us why you would be unwilling to participate in EEOC’s mediation
program in the future.

Everything was denied that I asked for accept past wages that were already owed to me I only want
to be treated fairly not discriminated against because of my injury and being a women
I believe the university would agree to mediation as a means to find preliminary information that
they could not gleam from the charging document and they have no sincere intentions of
resolving the charge through mediation.
I would be hesitant because I don’t feel like the company really was interested in resolving the
issue. I think the company was more interested in knowing/hearing what I had to say about the
situation so they could build a defense for the charge.
I feel like the entire process was set up to intimidate me into just dropping the case or settling for
whatever the employer offered.
I’ll just contact an attorney.
It was very unclear and seemed that without representation I had no option of a resolution that was
fair although I was wrongly discriminated against
It wasn't worth it! If it happened again I would hire a labor lawyer.
Communication with the mediator for EEOC has been non existent for two weeks.
Either the mediator had not reviewed my case thoroughly or she sided with the company I work for
I felt that the mediator was in helpful or on my side wasn’t pushing the issue
The EEOC's mediation program is useless and I feel that the EEOC representative did not take my
claim seriously and was disorganized.
The mediator was clearly not neutral. He was argumentative with me. Was very condescending
The mediator was on a too friendly a basis with the lawyer of my previous employer and had has
several dealing with them in the past. It was like routine for him to deal with my opposing
employers lawyers and other people there from HR.
I feel this is more of a hesitancy than an outright no. I feel that Complainants get less desirable
outcomes in an EEOC mediation as opposed to private mediation. The mediator did not fully
advise my client of the legal arguments being advanced by the other side or the fact issues, i.e.
lacking in strengths and weaknesses analysis, and did not aggressively pursue settlement in the
manner that I am accustomed to with paid mediators. Obviously, I understand that a free
service has its limitations.
I will mediate in the future, but if I discover I have been assigned to [name], I will contact
opposing counsel and tell them that we will have to use an outside mediator as we will not
mediate with Mr. Dixon.
Inept mediator who failed to listen to the parties
I am not satisfied with this outcome, and if further investigating was performed I could have taken
the case to court and received what I am entitled to. Not a bunch of lies and pennies that didn't
even come close to covering my losses.
Release me to sue. This should have been resolved in 2018. Any delay just benefits the employer.
Because of the circumstances of this mediation; I would not trust the process if mediation was an
option for a future event.
Because it was very unprofessional
Because I did not understand that the long wait for a session allows an employer to horse around
and buy extra time to hire an expensive attorney and collect data for their response which was
due months ago.
I was only placed back on the street, I still can’t get correct uniforms and I had to wait two months
before I was measured for a new vest, when my current vest has been expired for almost two
years and falling apart. I was placed back on the street alone, when other officers that had
been off the street had been allowed to ride with someone when my request was denied and was
given a car without a working computer.
It seemed like a [waste] of time
I would not have initially considered mediation if my counterparty had been more cooperative at
any point prior. I tried mediation with the belief that, despite my counterparty's posture, the
mediator's approach would level the playing field and at least callout issues on all sides
equally. Yet, I believe a mediation cannot be effective with one party believing (in a legal,
argumentative way) that they have an open and shut case, they are making (as the mediator
stated) "a business decision", and they are not responsive to concerns about desiring to mend
the actual relationship between the parties. I went into the mediation skeptical, but hopeful. I
left feeling coddled and herded. If the EEOC believes cases are open and shut, and see an
unrelenting party postured in such way with their statement, they should not be encouraged to
go into and proceed through a full day of mediation.
It didn't help me. I feel it was biased and didn't work in my favor.
Mediation seems more biased for the employer only interested in high profile cases.
Sides were taken it seemed
The program is worthless a lot of favoritism involved
My experience as a litigator is that EEOC mediations rarely result in a resolution in my matters. It
seems like a delaying tactics by employers/respondents where they low-ball claimants and
simply delay the process of litigating when they are not truly making good faith attempts to
resolve the matters.
There was no value to this process and it forced us to show our defense. We should have gone
straight to trial.
I felt there was no flexibility and not enough information shared or discussion. I also wanted to
participate in an additional meeting but was told that was not an option. (?)
Mediator was super nice but I would prefer a different style of mediation.
It was a waste of time. The mediator did not assist the parties in reaching resolution.
Mediator was creating a non charging matter worth monetary gain opportunity and not dismiss the
case for some money. Since the charges are groundless.
The mediator was not effective in assisting the parties in reaching a compromise in light of the
available evidence and allegations.
False accusations that are rewarded by monetary gain is not a fair and neutral playing field.
Money was saved from a long drawn out trial so that is fair enough.
IF the claim was actually true, then I would. However, there seems to be no sign that EEOC cares
if the claim is true or not. They have no liability or concern towards the small business owner
who has done nothing wrong. This is an unfair biased organization that empowers people to
make claims with zero or very little real evidence. It gives money to underserving people who
have found a way to make easy money through EEOC. Small business owners have no choice
but to mediate because it's advertised as free, but then a mediator comes in with the sole
purpose to come up with a number in the quickest time possible.
Mediation goal seems to just be what we are willing to give the claiming party. Not that the charge
was totally bogus and should just have been resolved.
I would only participate in a mediation session with the EEOC if specifically requested by my
client. I prefer private mediators who are not nakedly antagonistic to employers.
Our case had a claimant's attorney who is unfamiliar with employment law. The mediator was
unfamiliar with the facts and law and therefore did not challenge the charging party or counsel
with any of the fundamental problems with the charging party's claim in a meaningful manner.
If I attempt to mediate at the EEOC phase again, I will likely use a private mediator who is
more familiar with the applicable law.
I felt due to the evidence that I would rather have an investigator do the investigation and give his
findings.
Not very effective and became more of a numbers game led by plaintiff’s attorney.
We will have to carefully weigh the cost benefits of mediation. It is obvious, mediation is a way to
extort money from employers. Employers have 3 options: 1) face the onslaught of the EEOC's
discovery process, or 2) defend meritless cases filed by the charging party's attorney where
they hope for some positive resolution so attorney fees can be granted, or 3) buy its way out of
options 1 and 2 by paying the charging party a settlement to which he/she is not entitled. The
EEOC needs to spend time and effort screening cases before placing employers in this perilous
situation.
Table 36a. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “If I had a future case with the EEOC, I
would prefer to participate in an EEOC mediation via video mediation even if in-
person mediation is allowed.”

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Disagree 101 9% 36 9% 65 9%
Agree 307 27% 100 24% 207 29%
Strongly Agree 446 39% 163 39% 283 39%
Mean Rating * 3.8883 3.8378 3.9171

Table 36b. Reasons for Preferring Video Mediation to In-Person Mediation
Question: Please select your main reason(s) for preferring video mediation to in-person
mediation.

and Party Party
# % # % # %
Total participants who prefer video
mediation over in-person mediation 753 263 490
Travel challenge - I do not have ready

means of convenient transportation. 103 14% 40 10% 63 9%
Location challenge – I do not want to
travel to the EEOC office location. 436 58% 144 35% 292 40%
I would not want to be in the same
location as the other party. 135 18% 81 20% 54 7%
I prefer to be online due to the issue
being mediated. 117 16% 59 14% 58 8%
Allows for others to attend mediation
or be available if needed who
would not otherwise may not be
able to do so. 447 59% 134 33% 313 43%
Cost considerations. 431 57% 114 28% 317 44%
Current job obligations. 204 27% 48 12% 156 22%
Other (See list below.) 77 10% 36 9% 41 6%
Table 36c. Reasons for Preferring Video Mediation to In-Person Mediation – Reasons
Given by Charging Parties
mediation: Other, please specify.
Charging Parties' Responses/Reasons

I was able to choose a place where I was comfortable which eased the stress of the process.
Convenience
Convenience and it’s in accordance with Covid protocols
It is generally more convenient.
It is more convenient to meet via video
Due to COVID mediation was the option.
I have long covid issues. The company hired lesser qualified younger white males and promoted
them rather than to promote an older disabled female. Seeing them makes me feel
dehumanized.
Virtual conferences acceptable method of meeting due Covid.
I did it over the phone. I felt very comfortable and less stressed and it allowed me to have all of my
paperwork at my fingertips
In 2014, I traveled to San Jose, CA. (from Oakland) for my EEOC case. Mediation was about 8 or
more hrs. The commute was too long and traveling on 880 (freeway needed for my commute) is
dangerous (accidents, road rage, angry drivers, &drivers who speed).
Auditory challenges supported by video mediation
I believe that was the only option
I have a really hard time driving. Due to my anxiety. I do not even like being in a car at all.
It difficult to sit in one’s presence knowing what they did to me just to see them lie about it
Table 36d. Reasons for Preferring Video Mediation to In-Person Mediation – Reasons
Given by Charging Party Representatives
Charging Party Representatives’ Responses/Reasons
Convenience of doc sharing via Zoom
Convenience of the parties.
Convenience. I would be willing to mediate in-person (and have multiple times, including at the
EEOC), but virtual mediations are extremely convenient.
It is generally more convenient.
Zoom mediations are just as effective as in person, unless special circumstances exist. This also
allows participants to be more comfortable, allowing for increased patience in the process. I
hope that zoom continues to be the preferred method for mediation
Just convenient, especially for cases that don't resolve. Time not wasted.
Mediation via Zoom is very cost effective, saves time and money and easier to schedule sooner.
OUR CLIENTS AND OUR FIRM LOVE IT!
I can do everything I would normally do in mediation in the comfort of my home. It reduces costs
(although, I'm not really concerned about that) and its just better. I honestly don't understand
why we do any work in-person unless necessary.
More scheduling dates available where we are not close to the district offices
As a Non-attorney Representative, I have clients all over the country and the costs of travel would
be prohibitive and counterproductive in most instances
COVID safety.
Doesn’t require the parties to waste time.
Ongoing pandemic
The online mediation is much more efficient
Time and efficiency
Video mediation is a more efficient use of resources.
My clients are typically not wealthy or sophisticated and they are very nervous about getting
dressed up and traveling to a stuffy office building
Can also complete other work while awaiting a response from the other side
It is significantly easier to schedule a virtual mediation compared to an in-person mediation
Saves time
Easier to schedule and get an earlier date. More can easily participate since there is no travel
involved
Efficiency of process
Table 36e. Reasons for Preferring Video Mediation to In-Person Mediation – Reasons
Given by Respondents
Respondents’ Responses/Reasons
Convenience
Just more convenient.
More time and money saved, period.
COVID
video mediation allows for more flexibility
ability to do other things at my desk while waiting
ability to multi-task
On breaks I was able to work. That would not have been the case if we were all out of the office
for mediation.
Video mediation allows for multi-tasking while waiting in breakout rooms; it is much more
efficient. I also feel it's more productive as it takes some of the emotion out - emotions can run
high when all parties in the same room with one another.
Efficiency of time, and pandemic-related concerns
Ease of use allowed it to proceed smoothly without the hassle of travel and bouncing between
rooms.
Ability to reach out to others within the organization to help settle the matter.
Video mediation allowed me to not say or show my emotions whereas an in-person meeting would
likely have caused an impasse.
If Covid-19 is ongoing, I would prefer to be in a video mediation rather than in a closed
conference room with others for many hours.
If possible, I would make the decision on a case-by-case basis.
Table 36f. Reasons for Preferring Video Mediation to In-Person Mediation – Reasons
Given by Respondent Representatives
Respondent Representatives’ Responses/Reasons

Cost, convenience, ability to get all decisionmakers to attend
General convenience for the parties and representatives.
Its simply more convenient and time/cost effective. It would have cost the entire day to go to the
EEOC office by the time we wrapped up. With ZOOM, I still had a half day to get other things
accomplished. Video is a modern and better option.
just overall convenience
The convenience of attending mediation via ZOOM from work/home with process as effective as in
person at EEOC office.
Reduces costs to client as no travel time to account for and client can remain at the workplace to
address onsite issues that may arise during mediation
Saves cost for legal fees for the respondent (my clients) so they may have more money to contribute
to a resolution, which was true in this case. Personal appearance requires additional billed
hour time to the client.
The Zoom/Video mediations save a tremendous amount of travel time and expense. This is
invaluable.
All involved in the mediation would need to attest to being fully vaccinated against COVID-19
before I would be comfortable participating in person.
Covid
COVID
COVID, efficiency, convenience, ease of technology
COVID, just as effective and reduces travel cost/expense.
Covid-19
Prevents the spread of COVID-19
Allows for flexibility for all parties and timely scheduling - Mediation virtual was managed
professionally and I think the process allows all parties to be comfortable
Ability to multitask during down time.
Allows parties to engage in other activities while the mediator is meeting privately with the other
participants. The lack of travel time, dealing with parking, etc. make the virtual mediation
much more efficient for all involved.
Easier as a working parent to participate remotely, given child care obligations.
Cases get resolved quicker via Zoom/online. Parties get to the point quicker. Much more efficient,
especially with an excellent mediator such as Mr. Melendez.
Makes it easier to schedule when travel is not involved - more cost and time effective
more efficient and convenient
AVOIDS WASTING TIME/ HASSLE GETTING TO/FROM MEDIATION
I strongly prefer virtual mediation because it does not waster my whole day. I can get work done
while the mediatory is communicating separately with the other side as opposed to being at an
in-person location where the time would be wasted.
It is a great tool for clients to participate without needing to travel and is particularly helpful when
there are out of state individuals who need to be involved.
Table 37a. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “The use of video mediation makes it
more attractive for my organization to participate in the EEOC Mediation Program.”
(Among Respondents Only)
Respondents
# %
Total responding 250 100%
Strongly Disagree 6 2%
Disagree 7 3%
Neither Agree nor Disagree 84 34%
Agree 94 38%
Strongly Agree 59 24%
Mean Rating * 3.7720

Table 37b. Reasons for Preferring In-Person Mediation to Video Mediation (Among
Respondents Only)
Question: Please state your reason(s) for preferring in-person mediation to video mediation.
Respondents
# %
Total responding 13
I want to be in the same location as the other party. 10 77%

I want to speak to or look the other party in the eye. 12 92%
I hope to resolve the charge and “shake hands” in a
positive in-person process. 5 38%
The in-person mediation is more formal. 9 69%
Others are more focused in an in-person mediation. 7 54%
I am more focused in an in-person mediation. 5 38%
I want to be able to see what the mediator is doing in
person. 8 62%
Other reasons: 2 15%
Being in person makes all parties commit time to the
process and have more skin in the game.
Most likely never do mediation again regardless of
platform
Table 38. Mediation Participants’ Suggestions
Question: Please explain in detail how you believe EEOC’s mediation process can be improved.
Number responding 444

None; process was great/went smoothly/effective/best practice/outstanding; great
experience; EEOC staff very professional/impressed with the process 147 33%
Mediator was excellent/knowledgeable/professional/skilled; was fair/neutral;
satisfied with how mediator handled the session; impressed with mediator’s
ability to work towards a resolution; mediator helpful/explained the process;
mediator was not intimidating; mediator gave participant confidence to talk;
mediator was helpful 129 29%
Mediators need to be assertive/recognize when no settlement is possible/suggest
options; mediator need more training/experience; mediator should do more than
“shuttling” offers from one party to the other; mediators should be neutral;
EEOC need more mediators (for scheduling mediations faster/earlier) 39 9%
Expressed preference for online/video/Zoom mediation: Continue with virtual
mediation/allow for virtual participation; video mediation is
flexible/convenient/saves time and money; video mediation avoid
intimidating/uncomfortable situations 33 7%
Expressed preference for in-person mediation: In-person is more effective/works
better; greater investment of time and effort; a different dynamic that encourages
settlement; process for obtaining signature [shortened]; human presence\ 19 4%
Pre-mediation or beginning-of-session suggestions: Ask/clarify party demands prior
to meeting; inform parties of participants (especially, presence or absence of
legal counsel); check/ensure both parties’ willingness to negotiate/discuss;
manage expectations (especially relating to monetary demands); explain the
process; require/explain if opening statements are required; review
evidence/documents beforehand 31 7%
Participant behavior: parties should come to mediation in good faith/sincere/open to
dialogue; come with legal representation; should state demand/no offer 15 3%
Technology-related concerns/suggestions: Ensure strong internet connection;
participants should be knowledgeable with using video; prefer Zoom – had
issues with Microsoft Teams 14 3%
Documents: Exchange of documents; no documents withheld; upload documents
for both parties to review; uniform software for signing documents 10 2%
APPENDIX C – THREE DATA POINT COMPARISION
TABLES
Table 1a. Responses to Statements Concerning
Fairness and Satisfaction with EEOC Mediation:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
SD/D SD/D SD/D
Statements -N- -N- -N-
A/SA A/SA A/SA
# * # * # *
4% - 2% - 4% -
The procedures used by the mediator in
3232 6% - 2681 4% - 1177 5% -
the mediation were fair to me.
90% 95% 91%
6% - 3% - 5% -
I was satisfied with the fairness of the
3207 11% - 2676 6% - 1183 7% -
mediation session.
83% 91% 88%
22% - 16% - 14% -
I was satisfied with the results of the
3024 20% - 2397 17% - 1180 19% -
mediation.
59% 67% 68%
* The three percentages refer to, first, the % who "Strongly Disagreed" or "Disagreed", followed by the % who "Neither Agreed
nor Disagreed, and, lastly, the % who "Agreed" or "Strongly Agreed" with each corresponding statement.
Table 1b. Comparison of Mean Ratings*:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Responses to Statements Concerning
Fairness and Satisfaction with EEOC Mediation
2000 2018/19 2021
Statements Mean Mean Mean
Rating** Rating** Rating**
The procedures used by the mediator in the mediation
4.38 4.70 4.45
were fair to me.
Mean difference test: 2000 compared to 2018/19 p-value: Less than 0.001
Mean difference test: 2000 compared to 2021 p-value: 0.017
Mean difference test: 2018/19 compared to 2021 p-value: Less than 0.001
I was satisfied with the fairness of the mediation session. 4.19 4.58 4.39
Mean difference test: 2000 compared to 2021 p-value: Less than 0.001
I was satisfied with the results of the mediation. 3.52 3.86 3.87
Mean difference test: 2018/19 compared to 2021 p-value: 0.942
* ANOVA tests indicate that the differences in mean/average ratings for the three survey periods are statistically significant
(with p-value less than 0.001). This table shows the post-test multiple comparisons of mean/average ratings.
** Mean ratings are computed based on a 5-point Likert scale: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree nor Disagree
(3), Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5)
*** Bolded entries refer to statistically significant differences at the 95% or 99% level.
Table 1c. Responses to Statements Concerning
Fairness and Satisfaction with EEOC Mediation:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Tabulated by Party
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
RSP/RSP RSP/RSP RSP/RSP
State-
CP/CP Rep Rep CP/CP Rep Rep CP/CP Rep Rep
ments
SD/D SD/D SD/D SD/D SD/D SD/D
-N- -N- -N- -N- -N- -N-
# A/SA* # A/SA* # A/SA* # A/SA* # A/SA* # A/SA*
4% - 3% - 2% - 2% - 7% - 2% -
Statement
1668 7% - 1564 5% - 1197 4% - 1484 3% - 433 7% - 744 5% -
#1
88% 92% 94% 95% 86% 94%
8% - 4% - 5% - 2% - 10% - 1% -
Statement
1648 13% - 1559 9% - 1194 7% - 1482 5% - 432 8% - 751 7% -
#2
79% 87% 88% 92% 82% 91%
26% - 18% - 21% - 12% - 21% - 9% -
Statement
1547 19% - 1477 20% - 1069 17% - 1328 16% - 428 19% - 752 19% -
#3
55% 63% 62% 72% 60% 72%
Statements:
Statement #1 The procedures used by the mediator in the mediation were fair to me.
Statement #2 I was satisfied with the fairness of the mediation session.
Statement #3 I was satisfied with the results of the mediation.
* The three percentages refer to, firstly, the % who "Strongly Disagreed" or "Disagreed", followed by the % who "Neither Agreed nor
Disagreed, and, lastly, the % who "Agreed" or "Strongly Agreed" with each corresponding statement
Table 1d. Comparison of Mean Ratings* by Party:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Responses to Statements Concerning
Fairness and Satisfaction with EEOC Mediation
Statements 2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
CP/CP RSP/RSP CP/CP RSP/RSP CP/CP RSP/RSP
Rep Rep Rep Rep Rep Rep
Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean Mean
Rating* Rating* Rating* Rating* Rating* Rating*
The procedures used by the mediator in
4.33 4.44 4.69 4.70 4.36 4.52
the mediation were fair to me.
Mean difference test: CP/CP Rep
Less than 0.001 0.660 0.001
compared to RSP/RSP Rep
I was satisfied with the fairness of the
4.07 4.31 4.52 4.63 4.24 4.47
mediation session.
Less than 0.001 0.001 Less than 0.001
I was satisfied with the results of the
3.38 3.67 3.66 4.02 3.64 4.01
mediation.
Less than 0.001 Less than 0.001 Less than 0.001
* Mean ratings are computed based on a 5-point Likert scale: Strongly disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neither Agree nor Disagree (3),
Agree (4), and Strongly Agree (5)
** Bolded entries refer to statistically significant differences at the 95% or 99% level.
Table 2a. Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediation Process
2000, 2018/19, and 2021 Data
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
SD/D SD/D SD/D
Statements -N- -N- -N-
A/SA A/SA A/SA
# * # * # *
Prior to my attendance at this mediation
7% - 4% - 5% -
session today, I received an adequate
3153 6% - 2482 5% - 1150 9% -
explanation about mediation from an
87% 91% 85%
EEOC representative.
6% - 3% -
The mediation was scheduled promptly. 3232 5% - 2651 4% - - -
89% 92%
After the mediator's introduction at the 3% - 2% -
mediation session, I felt that I understood 3237 3% - 2651 2% - - -
the mediation process. 94% 96%
2021 Survey: After the mediator's
5% -
introduction at the mediation session, I
- - - - 1152 8% -
understood how to use the mediation
88%
technology.
I (or my representative) had a full 3% - 2% - 4% -
opportunity to present my views during 3240 4% - 2684 3% - 1186 4% -
the mediation process. 92% 96% 93%
Table 2b. Comparison of Mean Ratings*
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediation Process
2000 2018/19 2021
Prior to my attendance at this mediation session today, I
received an adequate explanation about mediation from 4.23 4.55 4.25
an EEOC representative.
The mediation was scheduled promptly. 4.34 4.59 -
Mean difference test: 2000 compared to 2021 Not Applicable
Mean difference test: 2019 compared to 2021 Not applicable
After the mediator's introduction at the mediation
4.44 4.75 -
session, I felt that I understood the mediation process.
2021 Survey: After the mediator's introduction at the
mediation session, I understood how to use the mediation - - 4.32
technology.
Mean difference test: 2000 compared to 2018/19 Not Applicable
I (or my representative) had a full opportunity to present
4.47 4.75 4.50
my views during the mediation process.
Table 2c. Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediation Process:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Tabulated by Party
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
State-
CP/CP Rep Rep CP/CP Rep Rep CP/CP Rep Rep
ments
-N- -N- -N- -N- -N- -N-
7% - 6% - 5% - 3% - 6% - 5% -
Statement 1637 5% - 1516 8% - 1113 4% - 1369 5% - 418 10% - 732 9% -
#1 88% 85% 91% 91% 85% 87%
7% - 4% - 4% - 3% -
Statement 1673 5% - 1559 5% - 1188 5% - 1463 4% - - - - -
#2 88% 91% 91% 93%
4% - 2% - 2% - 1% -
Statement 1676 5% - 1561 2% - 1183 3% - 1468 2% - - - - -
#3a 92% 96% 96% 97%
6% - 4% -
Statement - - - - - - - - 419 10% - 733 7% -
#3b 85% 89%
4% - 2% - 2% - 2% - 8% - 2% -
Statement 1677 6% - 1563 3% - 1201 3% - 1483 2% - 433 5% - 753 3% -
#4 90% 95% 95% 96% 87% 95%
Statements:
Statement Prior to my attendance at this mediation session today, I received an adequate explanation
#1 about mediation from an EEOC representative.
Statement
The mediation was scheduled promptly.
#2
Statement After the mediator's introduction at the mediation session, I felt that I understood the
#3a mediation process.
Statement 2021 Survey: After the mediator's introduction at the mediation session, I understood how to
#3b use the mediation technology.
Statement I (or my representative) had a full opportunity to present my views during the mediation
#4 process.
Table 2d. Comparison of Mean Ratings by Party:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediation Process
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
Statements Rep Rep Rep Rep Rep Rep
Prior to my attendance at this
mediation session today, I received an
4.24 4.21 4.56 4.54 4.28 4.24
adequate explanation about mediation
from an EEOC representative.
0.354 0.607 0.489
The mediation was scheduled
4.28 4.39 4.56 4.62 - -
promptly.
0.001 0.046 -
After the mediator's introduction at the
mediation session, I felt that I 4.35 4.53 4.72 4.77 - -
understood the mediation process.
Less than 0.001 0.057 -
2021 Survey: After the mediator's
introduction at the mediation session, I
- - - - 4.29 4.35
understood how to use the mediation
technology.
0.278
I (or my representative) had a full
opportunity to present my views during 4.39 4.57 4.71 4.77 4.38 4.58
the mediation process.
Less than 0.001 0.011 Less than 0.001
Table 3a. Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediator:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
SD/D SD/D
Statements -N- -N- SD/D
A/SA A/SA -N-
# * # * # A/SA*
4% - 2% -
The mediator understood my needs. 3221 9% - 2662 5% - - -
87% 93%
5% - 2% -
The mediator helped clarify my needs. 3169 13% - 2605 7% - - -
82% 91%
3% - 2% - 2% -
At the beginning of the mediation, I
3240 5% - 2693 3% - 1180 4% -
considered the mediator to be neutral.
92% 95% 94%
4% - 2% - 5% -
The mediator remained neutral during the
3228 6% - 2691 3% - 1181 5% -
session.
90% 94% 91%
5% - 3% - 6% -
The mediator helped the parties develop
3206 10% - 2630 7% - 1176 11% -
options for resolving the charge.
85% 90% 83%
Most of the options developed during the 10% - 5% - 5% -
mediation session were realistic solutions 3167 14% - 2598 10% - 1177 15% -
to resolving the charge. 75% 84% 80%
Table 3b. Comparison of Mean Ratings*:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediator
2000 2018/19 2021
The mediator understood my needs. 4.30 4.67 -
Mean difference test: 2018/19 compared to 2021 Not Applicable
The mediator helped clarify my needs. 4.21 4.60 -
Mean difference test: 2018/19 compared to 2021 Not Applicable
At the beginning of the mediation, I considered the
4.46 4.73 4.52
mediator to be neutral.
The mediator remained neutral during the session. 4.43 4.70 4.47
The mediator helped the parties develop options for
4.25 4.55 4.25
resolving the charge.
Most of the options developed during the mediation
3.97 4.41 4.19
session were realistic solutions to resolving the charge.
Table 3c. Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediator:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Tabulated by Party
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
Statement CP/CP Rep Rep CP/CP Rep Rep CP/CP Rep Rep
-N- -N- -N- -N- -N- -N-
5% - 3% - 3% - 1% -
Statement
1669 9% - 1552 10% - 1194 4% - 1468 5% - - - - -
#1
86% 87% 93% 94%
5% - 4% - 3% - 2% -
Statement
1665 10% - 1504 17% - 1185 6% - 1420 7% - - - - -
#2
84% 79% 91% 91%
4% - 3% - 3% - 2% - 4% - 1% -
Statement
1674 4% - 1566 5% - 1206 2% - 1487 3% - 429 5% - 751 3% -
#3
92% 92% 95% 95% 91% 96%
4% - 4% - 3% - 2% - 8% - 3% -
Statement
1664 5% - 1564 6% - 1203 3% - 1488 4% - 429 6% - 752 4% -
#4
91% 89% 94% 94% 87% 94%
5% - 5% - 3% - 3% - 10% - 3% -
Statement
1661 10% - 1545 11% - 1177 6% - 1453 8% - 428 10% - 748 12% -
#5
85% 84% 91% 89% 79% 85%
12% - 9% - 6% - 5% - 9% - 4% -
Statement
1648 13% - 1519 16% - 1159 10% - 1439 10% - 427 14% - 750 15% -
#6
75% 76% 84% 85% 77% 81%
Statements:
Statement #1 The mediator understood my needs.
Statement #2 The mediator helped clarify my needs.
Statement #3 At the beginning of the mediation, I considered the mediator to be neutral.
Statement #4 The mediator remained neutral during the session.
Statement #5 The mediator helped the parties develop options for resolving the charge.
Most of the options developed during the mediation session were realistic solutions to
Statement #6 resolving the charge.
Table 3d. Comparison of Mean Ratings by Party:
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Responses to Statements Concerning the Mediator
Statements 2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
Rep Rep Rep Rep Rep Rep
The mediator understood my needs. 4.30 4.31 4.64 4.69 - -
0.726 0.148 -
The mediator helped clarify my needs. 4.25 4.17 4.61 4.60 - -
0.011 0.900 -
At the beginning of the mediation, I
4.44 4.49 4.71 4.74 4.49 4.54
considered the mediator to be neutral.
0.076 0.421 0.192
The mediator remained neutral during
4.42 4.43 4.71 4.70 4.38 4.52
the session.
0.586 0.726 0.007
The mediator helped the parties
develop options for resolving the 4.27 4.23 4.58 4.52 4.21 4.28
charge.
0.235 0.069 0.212
Most of the options developed during
the mediation session were realistic 3.95 4.00 4.39 4.41 4.16 4.20
solutions to resolving the charge.
0.221 0.567 0.494
Comparison Table 4a. Participants' Expectations Going into the Mediation and
What They Obtained at End of Mediation
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
All Participants All Participants All Participants
# % # % # %
Going into the mediation, did you
know what you wanted from this 3122 100% 2489 100% 1142 100%
mediation?
Yes 2630 84% 2014 81% 1066 93%
No 492 16% 475 19% 76 7%
For those who responded YES to the
question above: In this mediation did
2548 100% 1939 100%
you obtain what you wanted going into
the mediation? - -
Yes 1279 50% 1071 55% - -
No 1269 50% 868 45% - -
2021 Survey: For those who
responded YES to the question above:
1039 100%
In this mediation did you obtain what
you wanted going into the mediation? - - - -
I received nothing of what I wanted - - - - 253 24%
I received some of what I wanted - - - - 282 27%
I received much or a majority of
what I wanted - - - - 346 33%
I received everything I wanted - - - - 158 15%
Table 4b. Participants' Expectations Going into the Mediation and
What They Obtained at End of Mediation
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Tabulated by Party
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
CP/ RSP/ CP/ RSP/ CP/ RSP/
CP Rep RSP Rep CP Rep RSP Rep CP Rep RSP Rep
(#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#)
Going into the mediation, did
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
you know what you wanted from
(1607) (1515) (1102) (1387) (412) (730)
this mediation?
Yes 83% 86% 82% 80% 93% 94%
No 17% 14% 18% 20% 7% 6%
For those who responded YES to
the question above: In this
100% 100% 100% 100%
mediation did you obtain what - -
(1282) (1266) (868) (1071)
you wanted going into the
mediation?
Yes 42% 58% 44% 64% - -
No 58% 42% 56% 36% - -
100% 100%
2021 Survey options: (375) (664)
I received nothing of what I
33% 20%
wanted - - - -
I received some of what I
32% 25%
wanted - - - -
I received much or majority of
29% 36%
what I wanted - - - -
I received everything I wanted - - - - 7% 20%
Table 5a. Participants' Willingness to Participate in the
EEOC Mediation Program in the Future
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
All All All
Participants Participants Participants
# % # % # %
If you were a party to a charge before the
EEOC in the future, would you be willing
to participate in the EEOC's mediation
program? 3178 100.0% 2578 100.0% 1135 100.0%
Yes 3035 95% 2482 96% 1084 96%
No 143 5% 96 4% 51 4%
Table 5b. Participants' Willingness to Participate in the
EEOC Mediation Program in the Future
2000, 2018/19, 2021 Data
Tabulated by Party
2000 Data 2018/19 Data 2021 Data
CP/ RSP/ CP/ RSP/ CP/ RSP/
CP Rep RSP Rep CP Rep RSP Rep CP Rep RSP Rep
(#) (#) (#) (#) (#) (#)
If you were a party to a charge
before the EEOC in the future,
100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
would you be willing to
(1643) (1535) (1149) (1429) (411) (724)
participate in the EEOC's
mediation program?
Yes 93% 98% 95% 98% 92% 98%
No 7% 2% 5% 2% 8% 2%
5
MEDIATOR
I. SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS
Mediators report that:
• ODR at the EEOC is more flexible than IPM. There is increased use of caucusing, increased
sharing of important documents, a significant reduction of the time pressure element found in
IPM, scheduling flexibility including the ability to extend the time of a mediation and/or quickly
reconvene a mediation to maintain settlement momentum, the added value of physical separation
of the parties’ safe space, increased/varied communication lanes, the positive role played by
insurance adjusters, and the real-time ability to invite other persons such as a key decision-maker
into the mediation.
• Mediators adopted new tactics with ODR that can be seen as a new type of mediation and not
duplication of IPM online. The results reveal increased caucusing intensity not possible in IPM
and new patterns of mediation communication using concurrent communications. Mediators
report immediate private feedback to the mediator, increased use of document sharing, flexible
scheduling tactics beyond the parameters set by a physical location, “one shot reconvening” to
make one more attempt at settlement, and the flexibility to invite necessary additional
participants.
• A majority of mediators saw similar or better quality and value of settlements for both parties in
ODR.
• There is little mediator observation of “Zoom fatigue”.
• Mediators did not observe power imbalance issues between the parties. Open-ended comments
suggest ODR has a leveling effect with the Charging Party (“CP”) being more comfortable in the
Zoom setting.
• There is little evidence of technology issues interfering with the overall quality and results of the
mediation. Where mediators report technological issues in ODR these are more likely to occur
with the CP.
• The majority of mediators report they can read “body language” in ODR. One quarter report an
issue observing body language on Zoom.
• The overwhelming majority of mediators did not report that case settlement was negatively
affected by ODR. A minority of mediators observed a case or cases they believe did not settle
due to the ODR format.
• Mediators found that ODR was effective across all EEOC Charge bases (race, gender, age, etc.).
• As a mediator gained additional experience in ODR, the numerous measures used herein to
evaluate the effectiveness of ODR vis-a-vis IPM increased in favor of ODR.
• EEOC staff mediators, who mediated the majority of the ODR cases in this survey, reported
consistently higher measures on the various measures for ODR as compared to the EEOC pro
bono and contract mediators with much lower case volumes.
• For most mediators, the EEOC’s transition to ODR was the first time the mediator used ODR.
• Mediators did not observe many new “tactics” used by the parties in ODR.
• Twenty percent report higher settlement rates for their ODR cases with 9% reporting lower rates.
A majority (62%) report that their settlement rate for ODR as IPM. Independent EEOC data
confirms that ODR has a similar settlement rate (70.9%) as IPM (71.9%) .1
• Most mediators did not report a change in any of their tactics used to break an impasse.
1
Ichniowski.Stephen, Email to E. Patrick McDermott, 7 February 2021 reporting settlement rates of 71.9% in FY
2019 which was all IPM; 69.4% for 2020 which was split 50/50 between IPM and ODR; and 70.9% in FY 2021
which was all ODR.
• Mediators reported that ODR was easier to use than IPM; their open-ended comments reported an
increase in the quality of their work-life balance. There is some evidence that mediations are of
shorter duration in ODR.
• The 2021 ODR survey measured the “repeat player effect” which hypothesizes that prior
experience with counsel or a party is an advantage. It is seen as a positive factor for resolution.
• The responses of the pro bono and contract mediators show they believe that their experience at
EEOC ODR is similar to workplace mediation in other forums (American Arbitration
Association, Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, courts, etc.) for this period of time
suggesting this EEOC data is generalizable to other mediation forums.
• Access to justice is enhanced by the EEOC ODR program by increased employer personnel and
decision-maker participation, ease of participation of other key attendees, increased employee
access, power balancing, removal of the CP’s fear of being in the same location as the Employer
for some cases, and related benefits to both parties.
• APPENDIX B
Table 1. Survey Participation

(Question 2: Please check the box below to provide your consent to participate in the survey.)
All
Media Contr Pro
Total number of mediators: tors Staff act bono
Who received a survey via email 254 69 70 115
Who consented to complete the survey 161 53 41 67
Response rate 63% 77% 59% 58%
Surveys included in the analysis 139* 52 34 53
Completion rate** 86% 98% 83% 79%
* Twenty-two surveys were excluded due to missing information or lack of experience in video mediation.
** Completion rate is defined in this study as the number of eligible surveys (139) divided by the number who consented to complete the
survey (161 total mediators).
Table 2. Mediator Status

(Question 3: Identify your status.)
Total number of mediators: 139 100%

Staff mediator 52 37%
Contract 34 24%
Pro bono 53 38%
Table 3. Experience with Video Mediation Platforms

(Question 4: When was the first time you used Zoom, Microsoft TEAMS, GOOGLE Meet, or some other video
platform tool to mediate in any forum? For those who used video platforms prior to the pandemic shutdown:
Please type in the approximate year you first used Zoom, etc.}
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
Total Staff Contract Pro bono
# % # % # % # %
Total number of mediators 1 1 5 1 3 1 5 1

responding 3 0 2 0 3 0 2 0
7 0 0 0 0
% % % %
During the COVID-19 pandemic 1 8 4 7 2 7 4 8

shutdown 1 1 1 9 4 3 6 8
1 % % % %
Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic 2 1 1 2 9 2 6 1

shutdown of March 2020 6 9 1 1 7 2
% % % %
( ( ( (
6 3 2 1
2010 or earlier ) ) ) )
( ( ( (
5 4 0 1
2011 - 2015 ) ) ) )
(
1 ( ( (
3 3 6 4
2016 - 2020 ) ) ) )
( ( ( (
2 1 1 0
No specific information provided ) ) ) )
Table 4. Number of Video Mediations Conducted at the EEOC
(Question 8: How many video mediations have you conducted at the EEOC in the past 12 months? If more than
60, please type in your best estimate.)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 0
3 0 5 0 3 0 5 0
Total number of mediators 9 % 2 % 4 % 3 %
3 5 5
4 4 2 1 6 2 1
1-5 7 % 1 % 9 % 7 %
1 1 2
2 6 8 8 1 3
6 - 10 2 % 4 % 6 % 2 %
1 1
1 2 8 9 1 9
11 - 20 7 % 4 % 3 % 0 %
2 0 6 2
21 - 30 3 % 0 % 2 % 1 %
1
6 2 9 0
31 – 50 9 % 6 % 3 % 0 %
1
4 0 0 2
51 – 60 6 % 5 % 0 % 1 %
2 6
3 5 3 2 3 4
More than 60 5 % 2 % 1 % 2 %
( (
2 2 ( (
2 0 1 1
61 – 100 ) ) ) )
( (
1 1 ( (
3 2 0 2
101 – 200 ) ) ) )
Table 5. Degree of Agreement to the statement: “In comparison, my time in the video mediations at the
EEOC usually take less time than compared to an in-person mediation.”
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 0
responding 6 % 1 % 4 % 1 %
7 6 9 6
Strongly Disagree 9 % 3 % 3 % 3 %
1 2 2
2 9 1 0 9 1 5
Disagree 6 % 0 % 3 % 3 %
3 2 4 3
4 5 1 5 1 7 1 5
Neither Agree nor Disagree 7 % 3 % 6 % 8 %
2 2 2 2
3 9 1 9 1 9 1 7
Agree 9 % 5 % 0 % 4 %
1 2
1 1 1 0 6 6
Strongly Agree 5 % 0 % 2 % 3 %
Average rating* (5-point Likert

scale) 3.1838 3.3725 3.1471 3.0196
*Based on the following 5-point Likert scale: 1 – Strongly Disagree, 2 – Disagree, 3 – Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 – Agree, 5 – Strongly
Agree
Table 6. Average Length of Video Mediations
(Question 10: On average, how long do your EEOC video mediations last?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 0
responding 7 % 1 % 3 % 3 %
0 0 0 0
Less than 1 hour 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
0 0 0 0
At least 1 hour but less than 2 hours 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
5 2 9 6
At least 2 hours but less than 3 hours 7 % 1 % 3 % 3 %
3 2 3 2
4 1 1 9 1 9 1 8
3 3 3 2
4 2 2 9 1 0 1 6
1 1 1
2 6 8 9 1 9
1 1
1 0 8 9 3
5 4 3 8
Table 7. Settlement Rates

(Question 11: I estimate that my settlement rates using video mediation platforms are:)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
1 0 0 0 0
responding 8 % 1 % 4 % 3 %
2 3 1
Higher compared to in-person 2 0 1 5 9 3
mediation 8 % 8 % 3 % 7 %
1
Lower compared to in-person 1 9 6 5 8
mediation 2 % 3 % 5 % 4 %
6 5 7 6
8 2 2 3 2 1 3 4
The same as in-person mediation 5 % 7 % 4 % 4 %
1
1 9 6 6 5
Not sure 3 % 3 % 2 % 8 %
Table 8. Perceived Settlement Value for the Charging Party

(Question 12: I estimate that the total value for the Charging Party of the settlement (monetary, non-monetary,
etc.) are:)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
Total number of mediators 1 1 1 1

responding 1 0 0 0 0
3 0 5 0 3 0 5 0
8 % 1 % 4 % 3 %
HIGHER – The Charging 2 3 1

Party/plaintiff seems to do better in 2 0 1 5 5 9
VIDEO mediation. 8 % 8 % 5 % 5 %
LOWER – The Charging

Party/plaintiff seems to obtain less
value in VIDEO as compared to IN- 6 2 9 8
PERSON mediation. 8 % 1 % 3 % 4 %
6 5 6 7
8 4 2 7 2 5 3 0
Similar 8 % 9 % 2 % 7 %
1 1 1
1 0 6 2 3
Not sure 4 % 3 % 4 % 7 %
Table 9. Perceived Overall Quality of the Settlement for the Charging Party
(Question 13: I estimate that the overall quality of the settlement for the Charging Party in mediations using
VIDEO as compared to IN-PERSON are:)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

3 0 5 0 3 0 5 0
8 % 1 % 4 % 3 %
Higher – The Charging Party obtains 1 2 1

a higher quality resolution in video 2 7 1 7 5 8
mediation 3 % 4 % 5 % 4 %
Lower – The Charging Party obtains

a lesser quality resolution in video as 6 2 9 8
compared to in-person mediation 8 % 1 % 3 % 4 %
Similar 6 6 6 7
9 8 3 3 2 8 3 4
4 % 2 % 3 % 9 %
Not sure 1
1 9 8 9 1
3 % 4 % 3 % 6 %
Table 10. Perceived Overall Quality of the Settlement for the Respondent
(Question 14: I estimate that the overall quality of the settlement for the Respondent in mediations using
VIDEO as compared to IN-PERSON are:)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

3 0 5 0 3 0 5 0
8 % 1 % 4 % 3 %
Higher – The Respondent obtains a 2 4 2

higher quality resolution in video 3 5 2 3 6 8
mediation 5 % 2 % 9 % 4 %
Lower – The Respondent obtains a

lesser quality resolution in video as 3 2 3 4
compared to in-person mediation 4 % 1 % 1 % 2 %
Similar 6 4 6 7
8 3 2 9 2 2 4 7
7 % 5 % 1 % 1 %
Not sure 1
1 9 6 9 1
2 % 3 % 3 % 6 %
Table 11. Estimated Percentage of EEOC Mediations that were not Resolved Because the Session was
Conducted Remotely
(Question 16: What percentage of the EEOC mediations conducted by you during the pandemic to now do you
estimate were not resolved solely because the session was conducted remotely and not in-person.)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

1 0 4 0 2 0 4 0
3 % 4 % 5 % 4 %
7 6 7 7
8 1 2 4 1 2 3 7
Zero 0 % 8 % 8 % 4 %
1 2 1
1 7 0 8 8
1% - 10% 9 % 9 % 2 % 8 %
1
8 9 2 5
11% - 25% 9 % 4 % 3 % 2 %
1 0 4 0
26% - 50% 1 % 0 % 1 % 0 %
1 0 4 0
51% - 75% 1 % 0 % 1 % 0 %
3 7 0 0
76% - 100% 3 % 3 % 0 % 0 %
Table 12a. Tactics Used for In-Person Mediations Prior to the Use of Video Mediations
(Questions 17: Identify the tactics that you used for in-person EEOC mediations prior to the use of EEOC video
mediations. Check all that apply.)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
Total number of mediators 1

3 5 3 5
9 2 4 3
1 8 7 9 8
Clarifying facts or areas of 4 3 4
1 4 7 1 7
agreement 0 1 6
7 % % % %
1 8 7 8 9
4 2 4
Encouraging openness, honesty 1 4 9 2 1
1 8 8
7 % % % %
1 8 7 8 8
4 3 4
Reframing, paraphrasing, restating 1 3 7 8 5
0 0 5
5 % % % %
1 8 7 8 8
4 2 4
"Reality checking" 1 3 9 5 5
1 9 5
5 % % % %
1 8 7 8 8
Helping parties see different vantage 3 2 4
1 1 3 5 7
points 8 9 6
3 % % % %
1 8 7 8 8
3 2 4
Use of probing questions 1 1 1 2 9
7 8 7
2 % % % %
1 8 7 8 8
4 2 4
Keeping parties focused 1 1 7 2 3
0 8 4
2 % % % %
1 7 8 6 8
4 2 4
Defusing negative emotions 0 7 1 5 1
2 2 3
7 % % % %
1 7 6 7 8
3 2 4
Evaluating strengths and weaknesses 0 6 9 6 1
6 6 3
5 % % % %
Discussion of the EEOC 6 7 5 6
9 3 1 3
investigation stage and access to 7 3 6 8
3 8 9 6
court % % % %
6 6 6 7
Providing knowledge of the law and 9 3 2 3
5 3 2 0
court litigation process 1 3 1 7
% % % %
6 7 5 5
8 3 1 2
Mediator's proposal to break impasse 1 3 3 5
5 8 8 9
% % % %
6 6 6 5
Pre-mediation calls/communication 8 3 2 2
1 7 5 3
to prepare 5 5 2 8
% % % %
5 5 6 5
Stepping back and letting parties 8 3 2 2
8 8 8 1
fashion the remedy 0 0 3 7
% % % %
5 6 5 4
7 3 2 2
Power balancing 4 0 9 5
5 1 0 4
% % % %
5 5 5 4
7 3 1 2
Leveraging time concerns 2 8 0 7
2 0 7 5
% % % %
5 5 5 4
7 2 2 2
Reflexive questioning 0 6 9 0
0 9 0 1
% % % %
Leveraging limited opportunity to 5 5 5 4

6 2 1 2
negotiate a settlement after today's 0 0 6 5
9 6 9 4
mediation % % % %
Discussion of ability to obtain or 4 5 5 3

6 3 1 1
afford counsel at later stages of the 7 8 0 4
5 0 7 8
process % % % %
3 4 3 3
5 2 1 1
Written pre-mediation submissions 7 0 8 4
2 1 3 8
% % % %
3 3 3 3
Presentation of data on EEOC 4 2 1 1
5 8 2 2
charges or court disposition 8 0 1 7
% % % %
1 1 1
Other (See Table 12b—Verbatim 1 4 1 9 5 8
responses) 9 % 0 % 5 % 4 %
Table 12b. Additional Tactics Used in In-Person Mediation
Attorney conferences, Pre-mediation consultation especially with pro se Charging Parties

Attorney One on Ones
Bracketing
Caucus
Doing joint opening session; flipside; bracketing, doing breakouts with just attorneys/or appropriate parties
with permission of all; key to everything I do is parties' self-determination - let the parties’ needs & interests
guide
Experience
I just began working in the mediator position. However, the same tactics used pre covid can be used during
virtual mediation sessions
Inquiring about key factual or document evidence the party will need to see or resolve before seriously
considering settling the case
Knowledge of counsel, at least by reputation. Chances of Summary judgment. Expense of defense. Potential
danger of discovery.
Translating positions into needs & interests
Venting.
Table 13. Additional Tactics Introduced/Employed in Video Mediations (Group A – Inviting key persons
to join the session)
(Question 19: From the list below, please identify additional tactics that you have introduced/employed in video
mediation to help parties reach resolution. Check all that apply. [Group A - Inviting key persons to join the
session])
All
Mediator
Group A: Inviting key persons to s Mediator Status
join the session
# % # % # % # %

3 5 3 5
9 2 4 3
Inviting an outside party (witness, 1 1 2

family, expert, trusted intermediary, 2 5 7 1 9
etc. 1 % 9 % 7 % 5 %
Inviting a key outside person who

can add important facts to join the 1 1 1
session as a result of information 2 4 1 9 5 9
exchanged in the mediation session 0 % 0 % 5 % 5 %
Inviting a key outside person who

can add important perspective to join 1 2 2
the session as a result of information 2 7 1 1 4 9
exchanged in the mediation session 4 % 1 % 8 % 5 %
Inviting a key outside person who is

a decision maker as a result of 2 3 2 1
information exchanged in the 3 2 1 1 4 1
mediation session 0 % 6 % 8 % 6 %
Inviting a key outside person who is

needed for a party’s emotional or
other support as a result of 2 3 2 1
information exchanged in the 3 7 2 8 1 9 3
mediation session 7 % 0 % 0 % 7 %
3 3 2 2
Inviting an insurance company 4 1 1 7 6 1 8
representative 3 % 9 % 9 % 5 %
1 2
Demanding a key decision maker 1 2 8 1 9
who is not at the table to join 6 % 4 % 7 % 5 %
Other key person you have invited to 4 8 3 0

video mediation: 5 % 4 % 1 % 0 %
Family member
Spouse, family, or friend
Board members, service animals and emotional support animals, newborns who are being breastfed
Interpreter
Table 14a. Additional Tactics Introduced/Employed in Video Mediations (Group B - Technology related
tactics)
mediation to help parties reach resolution. Check all that apply. [Group B - Technology related tactics])
All
Mediator
Group B – Technology-related s Mediator Status
tactics
# % # % # % # %

3 5 3 5
9 2 4 3
6 6 6 5
Inviting a party to share a key 8 4 3 7 2 8 3 8
document 9 % 5 % 3 % 1 %
More frequent use of the breakout

room tool for 6 6 6 5
caucusing/shuttling/attorney 8 0 3 7 2 2 2 3
discussions, etc. 4 % 5 % 1 % 8 %
Concurrent caucusing (using a main

session and concurrently
communicating with each party 3 4 3 3
during the main session with chat, 5 6 2 4 1 2 1 0
text, etc. 0 % 3 % 1 % 6 %
More use of a party's documents via 3 4 1 2

the video share tool in the separate 4 2 2 8 8 1 6
caucus/breakout room 5 % 5 % 6 % 4 %
3 4 3 2
More use of a party's documents via 4 5 2 4 1 2 1 6
video sharing in joint session 8 % 3 % 1 % 4 %
3 5 2 2
Use of the "chat" tool for general 5 7 3 8 1 9 1 3
communications 2 % 0 % 0 % 2 %
Use of the File Transfer chat tool to 1 1 1

vet the settlement agreement 1 2 2 8 9
language with parties 7 % 6 % 6 % 5 %
1 2
Using the video communication tools 1 1 1 3 6 2
such as clap, thumbs up, etc. 5 % 2 % 2 % 1 %
Use of neutral audio-visual clip(s), 4 6 3 2

music, etc. 5 % 3 % 1 % 1 %
1
Other technology tactics you use 6 2 6 0
(See Table 14b.) 8 % 6 % 2 % 0 %
Table 14b. Verbatim responses: Additional tactics in video mediation [Group B – Technology-related]
Inviting the parties to use the "Ask for Help" button while in caucus
Use of phone for talking privately with a party, as necessary for additional communication channel.
Emails
Use of share screen to go over mediation settlement agreement language with each side in caucus; use of
email in real time for sharing info and as back channel "hallway" communication with counsel especially
Whiteboarding/Note taking during joint session; modeling potential negotiation moves/outcomes to help
parties overcome resistance; using charts to illustrate the parties progress toward settlement and to maintain
awareness of the mid-point
I use the broadcast message feature to alert parties to when I leave or enter a room.
Use chat or ask for help buttons to allow parties to call mediator back to caucus room after private client
discussion
Table 15a. Additional Tactics Introduced/Employed in Video Mediations (Group C - Administrative

factors/tactics)
mediation to help parties reach resolution. Check all that apply. [Group C - Administrative factors/tactics])
All
Mediator
Group C – Administrative s Mediator Status
factors/tactics
# % # % # % # %

3 5 3 5
9 2 4 3
Enhanced scheduling availability to 1 7 8 7 6

meet parties' needs (no building 0 4 4 3 2 1 3 8
hours or traffic issues, etc.) 3 % 3 % 4 % 6 %
More effective separation of the

parties by Zoom breakout room tool 6 7 5 4
compared to when physically sharing 8 1 4 7 2 9 2 7
the mediation site 5 % 0 % 0 % 5 %
Inviting a party to send a document 2 2 2 1

to the other party via the video chat 2 1 1 9 4 1
feature 9 % 5 % 8 % 6 %
Willingness to extend the time of the 6 7 4 5
session due to the convenience of 8 3 4 7 1 7 3 8
video 7 % 0 % 6 % 1 %
Offering to quickly reconvene the 6 7 5 5

mediation at another time for one 8 2 3 5 2 9 2 1
more shot at a settlement if possible 6 % 9 % 0 % 7 %
1
Other administrative tactics (See 6 2 3 4
Table 15b) 9 % 6 % 1 % 2 %
Table 15b. Verbatim responses – Additional tactics in video mediation [Group C – Administrative
Tactics]
Ability to have multiple breakout rooms for side-conversations (counsel only, etc.) or multi-party cases,
versus limitations on physical space
Ability to use the phone to call into the zoom if a party has a child at home and cannot participate by video
Attorney One on Ones
Easier to reschedule in instances where a party has to cancel since there were no travel expenses previously
incurred by the parties and the Mediator.
If I think it would be helpful to talk to counsel separately I sometimes text them during the session.
Separate follow ups/with each side via zoom post mediation
Use of Microsoft Teams and PDF files
Willingness of the parties to extend the time of the mediation session because they do not have to worry about
long drive home.
Table 16. Additional Tactics Used to Help Parties Reach Resolution – Verbatim Responses
Having an attorney only breakout session

requesting mediation participants email documents to the mediator
using a cell phone to communicate with parties to rejoin a session
I found that most pro se Charging Parties were less intimidated by using Video and
Teleconference. They were more relaxed. This goes for CP's that were represented by counsel as
well.
I have noticed that overall, participants, especially Charging Parties, are less nervous, less
intimated, have a better disposition towards the mediation process and I spend less time dealing
with calming people down or diffusing tension or aggression.
Making sure that the parties were comfortable with using zoom prior to the mediation session.
Not having to constantly escort the parties to the restroom or advise them on where to go for
breaks and/or lunch as you have to do in person.
Reconfirming less expense for travel by Respondent to have parties gather which has allowed
Respondent in many cases to offer other incentives to resolve.
Discussing with both parties the efficiency and least stressful use of video than in person which has
been extremely successful, decreased stress and anxiety on both parties and has addressed security
concerns and health and safety concerns.
Reformatted convening documents to reflect video format. Reemphasize confidentiality -I'm not
recording nor should they. Get affirmation to that from all participants and confirmation that only
people identified are participating (furry friends, small children excluded :-))
The ability to have continuous negotiations via secondary meetings or calls
Have the parties wait in a waiting room and having a hands on training on how to use Zoom for
those new to the system.
I encourage parties to use the "Ask for Help" button while chatting privately in the caucus room, to
notify me when they're ready for me to return from the lobby. Most representatives have informed
me that they love the feature and that they get a much quicker response from the mediator versus
trying to track someone down in an office/building.
I offer the parties (mostly unrepresented CP's and small business owners) the opportunity for a
"test connection." Sometimes, they are not tech savvy and will like to test their ability to connect to
zoom prior to the mediation. We set up the test date and that usually leads to additional pre-
mediation counseling. I find parties appreciate the opportunity of the test connection.
One of the tactics or zoom features that I have found very useful is the ask for help button on the
bottom of the screen. This allows the mediator who is already in front of the screen to know when
the parties are ready to step into the breakout room. This has saved a great deal of time for
everyone since I no longer have to guess how much time to let the parties caucus on their own and
they don't have to use a phone in the office to contact me in my office. It also allows me to get
other administrative work done while I am at my computer because I know that the ask for help
button will let me know when I am needed.
Language Interpretation or interpreters
Defusing conflict through observations of the parties' surroundings on the video, making
connections, etc. (i.e., interesting art, pets, and even sharing view of personal space to make
connections with people.)
Defusing conflict/adding humor when technology glitches (frozen screen, muted mic, connection
issues - reveals the humanity of the participants.)
Practice opportunity
Speak with parties pre-mediation to discuss process - this has helped with parties not represented
by counsel to ensure they understand process which ends smoothly.
I've invited counsel to participate with me in pre-formal-session communication to generate
momentum - and reduce surprise - going into the video session
Encouraging parties to have refreshments while waiting for me to return from a chat room.
Encouraging parties to build a bridge of new options while in the caucus room.
Asking parties to return any urgent calls which came in during the joint session, but to put
themselves on mute. Reminder of the confidentiality nature of the session.
If available, take a walk outside and leave the phones inside.
Scheduling separate zoom meetings for charging party and respondent so no risk of breakout room
privacy breaches.
Able to have immediate contact with CP and R after CP resigned during the mediation. We quickly
communicated with the CP to return her items and clear out desk while still in mediation. It was
successful.
I believe more parties have attended for respondent than would have for in person which facilitated
more rapid settlement
Settlement priorities identification - reviewing importance of potential monetary/non-monetary
remedies with the parties using Excel to sort and compare CP and R's priorities and identify areas
of overlap. Negotiation agent - using an algorithm model to help the parties estimate possible
settlement moves and to consider alternative approaches to individual moves or overall strategy.
Charts demonstrating bracket overlap areas and incremental progress toward resolution resulting
from negotiation.
Table 17a. Setting Additional Ground Rules
(Question 20: Compared to in-person mediation, has the use of video mediation caused you to set additional
ground rules?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

3 0 5 0 3 0 5 0
8 % 1 % 4 % 3 %
2 4 2
Yes, I set additional ground rules 3 5 2 3 6 8
compared to in-person mediation. 5 % 2 % 9 % 4 %
No, I set less ground rules compared 3 2 3 4

to in-person mediation. 4 % 1 % 1 % 2 %
6 4 6 7
No, I set the same ground rules in 8 3 2 9 2 2 4 7
video and in-person mediation. 7 % 5 % 1 % 1 %
1
I don’t set ground rules when 1 9 6 9 1
mediating. 2 % 3 % 3 % 6 %
Table 17b. Setting Additional Ground Rules – Verbatim Responses
Ask who else is in the room with the parties

Confirm no one else in the room and discuss what to do if the technology fails. I give counsel my
cell phone number in case of a technology failure.
I ask each video participant to confirm that no one other than persons visible on the screen can
hear the mediation at their respective locations.
I find it important to ensure that no extra person is attending the mediation outside of the view of
the camera. I provide advance information about this rule, and then when I detect that a spouse is
attending off camera, I include them, get their confidentiality agreement signature, and discuss
their attendance with the other side before beginning the mediation.
I instruct the parties in advance to announce when a non participant enters the space. We put a
hold on the process until such party departs.
identifying who is present with the parties but may be off camera
Make sure no one else is in attendance that has not signed the agreement to mediate and
confidentiality agreement.
make sure that anyone else who is in the room identifies themselves to the mediator and the other
party and get consent for that person to listen in on the mediation.
No cell phones. No interruptions. No additional parties unless they agree and sign the
confidentiality document.
Persons outside of the site of the camera, must sign the Confidentiality Form.
No recording, identification of anyone else in the room
There's an additional paragraph for telephone mediations where everyone in the room must
identify themselves and have signed the Agreement to Mediate and Confidentiality Agreement.
There is a bit more conversation about the caucus rooms and how I will get in touch with the
parties when I am returning to their room. Doesn't take long.
Mute yourself when others are speaking. And explain I might mute you if I can’t hear the person
who is speaking if you interrupt them.
Please silent all outside noise.
Appear via video. No turned off cameras. Make sure everyone is in a room with privacy to prevent
third parties from hearing confidential communications. (I.e., you cannot attend mediation while
sitting at the gate at the airport or riding in an Uber vehicle.)
Emphasis on confidentiality and instructing participants to ensure that they are in a place where
they cannot be overheard by others
Ensuring no one else is in the room for confidentiality purposes
Ground rules relating to mediation confidentiality
I ask the parties to "guard" the confidentiality of their space. Meaning if a non-participant enters
their space during the mediation (friend, relative, co-worker, etc.), I ask them to leave the
mediation and to rejoin only when the non-participant has gone.
Mainly additional ground rules surrounding confidentiality and the importance of that since I can
not see who is in the room as well reminding the parties that there shall be no recording of any
part of the mediation session. I believe all parties have been very receptive of these ground rules
and adhered to them without issue.
Do not video share the session proceedings. Do not live stream. Do not take pictures of the
screen.
To safeguard the confidentiality of the process
No recording of the mediation session
No recording of the session
No recording of the session. I had this ground for in person but I had to confirm this for video
sessions because I was not physically in the room to confirm no video. Also, added the ground rule
that no one else (other than those participating in the mediation) could be present in the room that
they were in.
No recording, no one else in the room, agreements to mediate and for confidentiality sent ahead of
time (formerly signed at in person mediations) method for notifying parties when they need me to
come back or when I want to enter their room
No video recording and confirming no one else is in the room
teach them to use Zoom and not to record or take pictures of Zoom
Ask parties and counsel to confirm that they are not recording the mediation and they understand
and agree that what is discussed as part of the mediation process and all offers to settle are
confidential and not discoverable in any litigation.
I ask each party to attest they are not recording the call and to attest they are in a location where
they can speak openly and confidentially.
No out of sight participants; agreement that there are no recordings
Patience with technology and the technical issues encountered with zoom
Please be verbal when communicating...I may miss their body language.
I ask for participation by video. Some want to participate by audio only and I discourage that.
For a few people I have had to set the ground rule that they plan to be fully engaged the entire day.
A few people scheduled other appointments during their mediation and came and went from the
session in a manner that was very disruptive to the process. That is a very rare occurrence. But if
that happens with someone, the next time I schedule a mediation with that person I clarify my
expectation of continuous participation.
Table 18. Comparing Participant Focus in In-Person Mediations and Video Mediations
(Question 22: In general, comparing in-person mediations to your mediations with video, how would you
compare the level of participant focus?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

3 0 5 0 3 0 5 0
8 % 1 % 4 % 3 %
2 4 2
The parties on video are more 3 5 2 3 6 8
focused. 5 % 2 % 9 % 4 %
3 2 3 4
The parties on video are less focused. 4 % 1 % 1 % 2 %
6 4 6 7
8 3 2 9 2 2 4 7
I have not noticed a difference. 7 % 5 % 1 % 1 %
Table 19a. Mediators’ Ratings of the Video Dispute Resolution Skills of the Charging Parties’ Attorneys
(Question 23-1: For your EEOC video mediations, please separately rate the video dispute resolution skills of
the Charging Party and Respondent attorneys and any Non-Legal Representatives who have appeared before
you on a scale of 1 to 5 with:1 = Minimal Skills, 2 = Below Average Skills, 3 = Average Skills, 4 = Above
Average Skills, 5 = Excellent Skills. Check "N/A" if not applicable. [Charging Party's Attorney])
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

2 0 4 0 3 0 4 0
3 % 6 % 0 % 7 %
2 0 3 2
1 = Minimal Skills 2 % 0 % 1 % 1 %
3 0 7 4
2 = Below Average Skills 4 % 0 % 2 % 2 %
4 3 5 3
4 0 1 7 1 7 1 2
3 = Average Skills 9 % 7 % 7 % 5 %
2 2 1 3
3 8 1 6 7 1 8
4 = Above Average Skills 5 % 2 % 5 % 8 %
2 3 1 2
3 7 1 7 7 1 3
5 = Excellent Skills 3 % 7 % 5 % 1 %
0 0 0 0
Not Applicable 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
Average Rating* 3.7561 4.0000 3.3667 3.7660

Agree
Table 19b. Mediators’ Ratings of the Video Dispute Resolution Skills of the Respondents’ Attorneys
Average Skills, 5 = Excellent Skills. Check "N/A" if not applicable. [Respondent's Attorney])
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

2 0 4 0 2 0 4 0
0 % 6 % 8 % 6 %
1 0 0 2
1 = Minimal Skills 1 % 0 % 0 % 1 %
2 0 7 0
3 2 4 3
3 3 1 8 1 3 1 0
3 = Average Skills 9 % 3 % 2 % 4 %
3 3 2 4
4 8 1 5 9 2 6
2 3 2 2
3 8 1 7 1 1 2
0 0 0 0
Average Rating* 3.8917 3.6429 3.8478

Agree
Table 19c. Mediators’ Ratings of the Video Dispute Resolution Skills of the Charging Parties’ Non-Legal
Representatives
Average Skills, 5 = Excellent Skills. Check "N/A" if not applicable. [Charging Party's Non-Legal
Representative])
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

2 0 4 0 2 0 4 0
0 % 6 % 8 % 6 %
3 7 0 2
1 = Minimal Skills 4 % 3 % 0 % 1 %
1 1 2 1
2 7 3 1 7
3 3 4 3
4 6 1 0 1 6 1 5
3 = Average Skills 3 % 4 % 3 % 6 %
1 2 1
1 3 0 7 1
1 2
1 0 0 7 2
2 1 1 3
2 1 1 8 1 3
Average Rating* 3.1263 3.3659 3.0000 2.9032

Agree
Table 19d. Mediators’ Ratings of the Video Dispute Resolution Skills of the Respondents’ Non-Legal
Representatives
Average Skills, 5 = Excellent Skills. Check "N/A" if not applicable. [Respondent’s Non-Legal Representative])
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

2 0 4 0 2 0 4 0
1 % 6 % 9 % 6 %
2 2 0 2
1 = Minimal Skills 2 % 1 % 0 % 1 %
1 1 1
1 1 1 4 9
3 3 4 3
4 9 1 7 1 5 1 7
3 = Average Skills 7 % 7 % 3 % 7 %
2 2 2 2
2 2 0 1 1 6
1 2
1 4 1 8 7 4
1 1 2
1 2 2 4 1 2
Average Rating* 3.4151 3.6222 3.2400 3.2778

Agree
Table 20a. Do Charging Parties Use Additional Tactics in Video Mediation?
(Question 24: Statement: I find that the Charging Party (not counsel) uses additional tactics in video mediation
that I do not see at in-person mediation.)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

2 0 4 0 3 0 4 0
3 % 6 % 0 % 7 %
1 2
1 0 1 2 7 0
Agree 2 % 0 % 2 % 0 %
1
1 9 7 9 0
1 0 3 8 2 3 4 0
Disagree 1 % 6 % 8 % 7 %
Table 20b. Additional Tactics Used by Charging Parties in Video Mediation – Verbatim Responses
(Question 66: Please identify additional new tactics you are seeing from Charging Parties/plaintiffs in video
mediation that you do not see at in-person mediation)
CPs seem to be more willing to engage, I think because they feel less intimidated and much less nervous
about mediation, way less emotional and more focused on resolving.
Greater use of negotiating skills - Charging Party has greater focus on the issues and less anxiety. Being at
home/in their own environment appears to comfort them more and thereby allows them to be more focused in
negotiations without feeling anxious.
I feel Charging Parties are less intimidated when they are in their own homes and are facing their phones or
computers. They easily share with you any documents necessary straight from their computer.
Charging Parties are able to access documents/files easier by participating from home/office and there's a
reduced level of stress versus coming into a physical conference room and searching for a specific document.
CPs have presented using a power point presentation in the joint session to elaborate on their allegations.
CPs have shared documents via the "share screen" without emailing the documents to the R as a "free
discovery".
Sharing of documents. Most of the time during in person mediation, the CP forgets to bring the documents
or does not understand that they can bring documents. Since we have used video, I have more time to
prepare the parties for what to expect as well as to what they should bring to the mediation including any
pertinent documents.
Negotiate harder because they feel there is more time for the mediation. Video mediations allow the
Charging Parties to save time by not having to travel to the EEOC offices, which can be a substantial
amount of time. They are also more relaxed because they are in their own environment, thus leading to less
anxiety.
They feel more impowered and are able to formulate their own strategies- confidence.
Being able to text me information while the Respondents are giving their perspective has been helpful
keeping the mediation process focused.
Frequent texting with non-mediation participants.
Not having the CP included on video, attending by phone.
Table 21a. Do Respondents Use Additional Tactics in Video Mediation?
(Question 25: Statement: I find that the Respondent (not counsel) uses additional new tactics in video mediation
that I do not see at in person mediation.)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

2 0 4 0 3 0 4 0
3 % 6 % 0 % 7 %
2
1 9 0 7 0
Agree 1 % 9 % 2 % 0 %
1
1 9 8 9 0
1 1 3 0 2 3 4 0
Disagree 2 % 7 % 8 % 7 %
Table 21b. Additional Tactics Used by Respondents in Video Mediation – Verbatim Responses
(Question 67: Please identify additional new tactics you are seeing from Respondents in video mediation that
you do not see at in-person mediation)
Negotiate harder because they feel there is more time for the mediation. However, video mediations appear
to take less time, which causes employers to feel better knowing that they do not have to pay more money to
their attorneys. Respondents are also more content while using video because they have IT technical
resources that they did not have before during in-person mediations. At the EEOC [office name] Local
Office, that building did not provide Wi-fi, a printer, or computer to access important information.
Additionally, Respondent and charging parties alike constantly complained that the breakout rooms at the
EEOC [office name] Local Office were ineffective because they were not soundproof and parties could hear
everything that was being said in said breakout room [in order] to fix this issue I had to make parties wait in
the hall lobby, during caucus, which was not effective because strangers and opposing parties could
[eavesdrop] into their confidential conversations. The parties who participate via video mediations now
express more confidence because they are ensured privacy. The same situation applies to the EEOC local
offices in [office names].
Documents presentation
Respondent has access to all of their materials and sources within their own environment. They also have
internet access and access to their own network - which is unavailable to them at our office because we do
not provide wifi or other internet access; as a result, they are more efficient and productive in mediation -
cutting down on the length of time for the mediation.
R's have presented using a power point presentation in the joint session to elaborate on their decision-
making process or whatever action is in question. R's have shared documents via the "share screen" without
emailing the documents to the CP as a "free discovery".
Additionally, R counsel is finally able to come prepared with the supplemental agreement to have signed and
returned either through email or the app. In person R counsel always complained about lack of wifi in the
buildings or inability to upload docs onto EEOC computers etc..
Being able to text me information while the Charging Party is giving their perspective has been helpful
keeping the mediation process focused. Video mediation helps me get the mediation scheduled with the
parties that need to be there instead of having to contact these individuals by phone during the mediation.
I've found Respondents tend to have more individuals participating (HR, First line supervisor, Outside
Insurance) on Zoom mediations versus in-person due to the possible time/cost savings of video mediation.
Respondents are very engaged in the process. They are not seating there thinking about traffic, getting out of
downtown, parking, parking fees and they are feeling less intimidated by the process and more willing to
resolve.
I feel they are more comfortable in their own environment.
They appear to use the mediator more to convey their wants and have access to very important files or info
that may be needed during session. This is extremely important and has rendered successful in many cases.
Table 22a. Degree of Agreement to Statements Regarding the Mediators’ General Experience with Video
Mediation – All Mediators
(Question 69: Based on your general experiences with video mediation by Zoom at the EEOC, please indicate
whether you “Agree” or “Disagree” with each of the following statements.)
ALL MEDIATORS
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagr Disagre Row
Agree ee e Total
Mediation moves at a faster pace by video 54 27 41 122
compared to in-person mediation. 44% 22% 34% 100%
The Opening offer is usually on the table 46 40 37 123
faster compared to in-person mediation. 37% 33% 30% 100%
The First counter-offer is made quicker 40 37 43 120
compared to in-person mediation. 33% 31% 36% 100%
The time element pressure at the end of the
mediation on video is more flexible than the
time pressure toward the end of an in-person 81 19 21 121
mediation. 67% 16% 17% 100%
My tactics for managing impasse are different 28 54 40 122
in video mediation than in-person. 23% 44% 33% 100%
It is more difficult to resolve party impasse on 21 62 40 123
video than in-person. 17% 50% 33% 100%
Video caucuses are more efficient with 63 24 36 123
breakout rooms than when I used caucuses in
person. 51% 20% 29% 100%
In a caucus the parties are more direct in video 42 28 50 120
communication compared to in person. 35% 23% 42% 100%
The parties are more direct in video
communication with the other party in joint 48 29 46 123
session compared to in person. 39% 24% 37% 100%
Parties are more respectful to each other on 45 18 59 122
video. 37% 15% 48% 100%
I see less emotional outbursts from 56 34 32 122
participants when mediating with video. 46% 28% 26% 100%
Video mediation reduces the time I would
normally spend in an in-person mediation in
preliminary relationship building between me 48 40 33 121
and a party. 40% 33% 27% 100%
Attorneys are more efficient in video 47 31 45 123
mediation compared to in-person mediation. 38% 25% 37% 100%
There is less back and forth with attorneys in 41 47 35 123
video mediation. 33% 38% 28% 100%
Attorneys are more respectful in video 32 24 66 122
mediation. 26% 20% 54% 100%
Table 22a. Degree of Agreement to Statements Regarding the Mediators’ General Experience with Video
Mediation – All Mediators (continued)
ALL MEDIATORS
Neither
Agree
nor
Disagr Disagre Row
Agree ee e Total
In video mediation settlement momentum is
not lost because the parties or their attorneys
leave the in-person mediation due to external
reasons (parking, other appointments, travel
issues, someone else has scheduled the room, 75 18 28 121
etc.) 62% 15% 23% 100%
The video document “share” function 66 7 46 119
improves communication of document content
that may impact settlement. 55% 6% 39% 100%
I can effectively read body language and 70 32 21 123
related cues in video mediation. 57% 26% 17% 100%
Table 22b. Degree of Agreement to Statements Regarding the Mediators’ General Experience with
Video Mediation – Tabulated by Mediator Status
Note: # row refers to number responding; % Staff Contract Pro bono

row refers to % Agree - % Disagree - % Mediators Mediators Mediators
Neither Agree nor Disagree Responding Responding Responding
Mediation moves at a faster pace by # 47 30 45

video compared to in-person 55%-15%- 40%-27%- 36%-27%-
%
mediation. 30% 33% 38%
The Opening offer is usually on the # 47 30 46
table faster compared to in-person 49%-26%- 47%-30%- 20%-41%-
%
mediation. 26% 23% 39%
The First counter-offer is made # 46 29 45
quicker compared to in-person 50%-28%- 38%-31%- 13%-33%-
mediation. %
22% 31% 53%
The time element pressure at the end
of the mediation on video is more # 47 29 45
flexible than the time pressure toward 77%-17%- 62%-7%- 60%-20%-
the end of an in-person mediation. %
6% 31% 20%
My tactics for managing impasse are # 47 29 46
different in video mediation than in- 28%-53%- 14%-48%- 24%-33%-
person. %
19% 38% 43%
# 47 30 46
It is more difficult to resolve party
impasse on video than in-person. 9%-57%- 17%-47%- 26%-46%-
%
34% 37% 28%
Video caucuses are more efficient with # 47 30 46
breakout rooms than when I used 72%-9%- 53%-20%- 28%-30%-
caucuses in person. %
19% 27% 41%
In a caucus the parties are more direct # 47 29 44
in video communication compared to 47%-21%- 38%-17%- 20%-30%-
in person. %
32% 45% 50%
The parties are more direct in video # 47 30 46
communication with the other party in 51%-21%- 23%-23%- 37%-26%-
%
joint session compared to in person. 28% 53% 37%
# 47 30 45
Parties are more respectful to each
other on video. 49%-15%- 33%-17%- 27%-13%-
%
36% 50% 60%
I see less emotional outbursts from # 47 30 45
participants when mediating with 60%-21%- 43%-27%- 33%-36%-
video. %
19% 30% 31%
Table 22b. Degree of Agreement to Statements Regarding the Mediators’ General Experience with
Video Mediation – Tabulated by Mediator Status (continued)
Staff Contract Pro bono

Table 22b. (continued) Mediators Mediators Mediators
Responding Responding Responding
Video mediation reduces the time I
would normally spend in an in-person
# 47 30 44
mediation in preliminary relationship
53%-23%- 27%-47%- 34%-34%-
building between me and a party. %
23% 27% 32%
Attorneys are more efficient in video # 47 30 46
mediation compared to in-person 49%-23%- 40%-30%- 26%-24%-
mediation. %
28% 30% 50%
# 47 30 46
There is less back and forth with
attorneys in video mediation. 49%-32%- 33%-37%- 17%-46%-
%
19% 30% 37%
# 47 29 46
Attorneys are more respectful in video
mediation. 36%-19%- 24%-24%- 17%-17%-
%
45% 52% 65%
In video mediation settlement
momentum is not lost because the
parties or their attorneys leave the in-
person mediation due to external
reasons (parking, other appointments, # 47 28 46
travel issues, someone else has 72%-13%- 61%-18%- 52%-15%-
%
scheduled the room, etc.) 15% 21% 33%
The video document “share” function # 47 29 43
improves communication of document 70%-6%- 52%-3%- 42%-7%-
content that may impact settlement. %
23% 45% 51%
# 47 30 46
I can effectively read body language
83%-2%- 37%-37%- 43%-43%-
and related cues in video mediation. %
15% 27% 13%
Table 22c. Degree of Agreement to Statements Regarding the Mediators’ General Experience with Video
Mediation – Tabulated by Mediator Experience
Mediators who
Mediators who
Note: # row refers to number responding; % have conducted
have conducted
All Mediators more than 20
row refers to % Agree - % Disagree - % Responding
20 mediations or
mediations
Neither Agree nor Disagree less during the
during the past
past 12 months
12 months
# 122 71 51
Mediation moves at a faster pace by
video compared to in-person mediation. 44%-22%- 31% - 28% - 63% - 14% -
%
34% 41% 24%
The Opening offer is usually on the # 123 71 52
table faster compared to in-person 37%-33%- 32% - 32% - 44% - 33% -
mediation. %
30% 35% 23%
# 120 70 50
The First counter-offer is made quicker
compared to in-person mediation. 33%-31%- 24% - 29% - 46% - 34% -
%
36% 47% 20%
The time element pressure at the end of
the mediation on video is more flexible # 121 69 52
than the time pressure toward the end of 67%-16%- 59% - 17% - 77% - 13% -
an in-person mediation. %
17% 23% 10%
My tactics for managing impasse are # 122 70 52
different in video mediation than in- 23%-44%- 19% - 39% - 29% - 52% -
%
person. 33% 43% 19%
# 123 71 52
It is more difficult to resolve party
impasse on video than in-person. 17%-50%- 21% - 45% - 12% - 58% -
%
33% 34% 31%
Video caucuses are more efficient with # 123 71 52
breakout rooms than when I used 51%-20%- 38% - 25% - 69% - 12% -
caucuses in person. %
29% 37% 19%
In a caucus the parties are more direct in # 120 68 52
video communication compared to in 35%-23%- 31% - 22% - 40% - 25% -
person. %
42% 47% 35%
The parties are more direct in video # 123 71 52
communication with the other party in 39%-24%- 31% - 30% - 50% - 15% -
joint session compared to in person. %
37% 39% 35%
# 122 71 51
Parties are more respectful to each other
37%-15%- 28% - 15% - 49% - 14% -
on video. %
48% 56% 37%
I see less emotional outbursts from # 122 71 51
participants when mediating with 46%-28%- 39% - 27% - 55% - 29% -
%
video. 26% 34% 16%
Table 22c. Degree of Agreement to Statements Regarding the Mediators’ General Experience with Video
Mediation – Tabulated by Mediator Experience (continued)
Mediators who
Mediators who
have conducted
have conducted
All Mediators more than 20
Table 22c. (continued) Responding
20 mediations or
mediations
less during the
during the past
past 12 months
12 months
Video mediation reduces the time I
would normally spend in an in-person # 121 70 51
mediation in preliminary relationship 40%-33%- 34% - 34% - 47% - 31% -
building between me and a party. %
27% 31% 22%
Attorneys are more efficient in video # 123 71 52
mediation compared to in-person 38%-25%- 31% - 30% - 48% - 19% -
mediation. %
37% 39% 33%
# 123 71 52
There is less back and forth with
attorneys in video mediation. 33%-38%- 25% - 42% - 44% - 33% -
%
28% 32% 23%
# 122 70 52
Attorneys are more respectful in video
mediation. 26%-20%- 20% - 21% - 35% - 17% -
%
54% 59% 48%
In video mediation settlement
momentum is not lost because the
parties or their attorneys leave the in-
person mediation due to external # 121 69 52
reasons (parking, other appointments,
travel issues, someone else has 62%-15%- 54% - 19% - 73% - 10% -
%
scheduled the room, etc.) 23% 28% 17%
The video document “share” function # 119 69 50
improves communication of document 43% - 6% - 72% - 6% -
content that may impact settlement. % 55%-6%-39%
51% 22%
# 123 71 52
I can effectively read body language and
related cues in video mediation. 57%-26%- 45% - 37% - 73% - 12% -
%
17% 18% 15%
Table 23a. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Status – Group A: Video
Technology/Setting Barriers
(Question 27: Please choose the top 3 most important barriers to resolution from this list of video technology
barriers that you find generally interfere with the resolution of your EEOC cases.) – [Group A: Video
technology/setting barriers]
All
Mediator
Group A: Video technology/setting s Mediator Status
barriers
# % # % # % # %
1
3 5 3 5
4 5 3 4
Technology Interference (internet 6 5 2 2 1 5 2 3
connection, poor audio, etc.) 2 % 7 % 2 % 3 %
1 1 2 1
The case needed an in-person 2 6 2 1 7
mediation forum and not Zoom. 2 % 6 % 7 % 9 %
Interference from other persons at the 2 2 2 1

Charging Party site that were not 2 1 1 5 6 3
mediation participants 9 % 3 % 9 % 7 %
Interference from other persons at the 1

Respondent site that were not 1 7 4 2 8
mediation participants 0 % 2 % 4 % 4 %
3 3 3 2
Limited video platform skills of a 4 2 1 7 1 5 1 6
participant 5 % 9 % 2 % 4 %
2 3 1 1
3 4 2 8 5 5
Others (not specified) 3 % 0 % 5 % 8 %
Table 23b. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Experience – Group A: Video
Technology/Setting Barriers
(Question 27: Please choose the top 3 most important barriers to resolution from this list of video technology
barriers that you find generally interfere with the resolution of your EEOC cases.) – [Group A: Video
technology/setting barriers]
Video Mediation Experience
20 or less More than

Group A: Video technology/setting
video 20 video
barriers
All mediations mediations
# % # % # %
13
Total number of mediators 9 86 53
Technology Interference (internet 45 39. 52.

connection, poor audio, etc.) 62 % 34 5% 28 8%
The case needed an in-person 16 18. 11.

mediation forum and not Zoom. 22 % 16 6% 6 3%
Interference from other persons at the

Charging Party site that were not 21 18. 24.
mediation participants 29 % 16 6% 13 5%
Interference from other persons at the

Respondent site that were not 9.3 3.8
mediation participants 10 7% 8 % 2 %
Limited video platform skills of a 32 30. 35.

participant 45 % 26 2% 19 8%
24 15. 37.
Others (not specified) 33 % 13 1% 20 7%
Table 24a. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Status – Group B: Charging
Party/Representative Conduct)
(Question 28: Please choose the top 3 barriers that you find generally interfere with resolution within this list of
potential charging party conduct.) [Group B – Charging Party/Representative Conduct]
All
Mediator
Group B – Charging s Mediator Status
Party/Representative Conduct
# % # % # % # %
1
3 5 3 5
Charging party (or their

representative) used mediation to 1 1 1
gather information (discovery, case 1 2 5 6 3
related to another case, etc. 7 % 8 % 2 % 7 %
Charging party’s (or their 5 6 6 4

representative’s) “positional 8 8 3 5 2 8 2 3
conduct” (unrealistic, unreasonable) 0 % 4 % 3 % 3 %
Charging party’s (or their

representative’s) “negotiation
conduct” (refused to discuss or 2 3 2 1
explore options, refused to listen, did 3 3 1 3 1 5
not show interest) 2 % 7 % 7 % 8 %
Charging party’s (or their 2 2 2 1

representative’s) “personal conduct” 3 2 1 9 1 5
(emotional, angry, disrespectful) 0 % 5 % 7 % 8 %
2 2 3 1
Charging party’s (or their 3 6 1 7 1 5 1 9
representative’s) lack of preparation 6 % 4 % 2 % 0 %
2 3 2 2
Charging party did not know what 4 9 1 5 1 9 1 5
they wanted 1 % 8 % 0 % 3 %
Charging party did not want to invest 6 6 9 6

the time 9 % 3 % 3 % 3 %
Charging party’s representative had 5 4 9 4

limited or no authority to settle 7 % 2 % 3 % 2 %
Charging party’s representative did 4 2 6 4

not have the time 5 % 1 % 2 % 2 %
1 1 1 2
Charging party needed legal 2 9 7 8 1 3
representation 7 % 9 % 6 % 2 %
Others (See verbatim responses 6 6 6 6
below) 8 % 3 % 2 % 3 %
C.P. unrealistic about both merits of charge and amount of possible financial remedy should the matter not
be resolved.
Totally unrealistic expectation of case worth and refusal to budge from that expectation.
Charging party and counsel were not together and therefore counsel had less ability to persuade the
client/charging party.
Charging party and/or their representative not negotiating in good faith.
Different theory, perspective and perception
Non employment issues were involved.
Table 24b. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Experience – Group B: Charging
Party/Representative Conduct)
potential charging party conduct.) [Group B – Charging Party/Representative Conduct]

Group B – Charging
video 20 video
Party/Representative Conduct
# % # % # %
13
Charging party (or their

representative) used mediation to
gather information (discovery, case 12 10. 15.
related to another case, etc. 17 % 9 5% 8 1%

representative’s) “positional 58 48. 71.
conduct” (unrealistic, unreasonable) 80 % 42 8% 38 7%

conduct” (refused to discuss or
explore options, refused to listen, did 23 12. 39.
not show interest) 32 % 11 8% 21 6%

representative’s) “personal conduct” 22 18. 26.
(emotional, angry, disrespectful) 30 % 16 6% 14 4%
Charging party’s (or their 26 24. 28.

representative’s) lack of preparation 36 % 21 4% 15 3%
Charging party did not know what 29 26. 34.

they wanted 41 % 23 7% 18 0%
Charging party did not want to invest 4.7 9.4

the time 9 6% 4 % 5 %
Charging party’s representative had 5.8 3.8

limited or no authority to settle 7 5% 5 % 2 %
Charging party’s representative did 3.5 3.8

not have the time 5 4% 3 % 2 %
Charging party needed legal 19 19. 18.

representation 27 % 17 8% 10 9%
4.7 7.5
Others (See previous table.) 8 6% 4 % 4 %
Table 25a. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Status – Group C:
Respondent/Representative Conduct
potential respondent conduct.) [Group C – Respondent/Representative Conduct]
All
Mediator
Group C – s Mediator Status
Respondent/Representative
Conduct Total Staff Contract Pro bono
# % # % # % # %
1
3 5 3 5
Respondent (or their representative)

used mediation to gather information 4 5 4 3
(discovery, case related to another 6 5 2 6 1 4 1 4
case, etc. 2 % 9 % 5 % 8 %
Respondent’s (or their 4 4 4 3

representative’s) “positional 5 2 2 4 1 7 2 8
conduct” (unrealistic, unreasonable) 9 % 3 % 6 % 0 %
Respondent’s (or their

conduct” (refused to discuss or 2 2 3 2
explore options, refused to listen, did 3 6 1 1 1 5 1 5
not show interest) 6 % 1 % 2 % 3 %

representative’s) “personal conduct” 1 9 8 9 9
(emotional, angry, disrespectful) 2 % 4 % 3 % 5 %
1 2 1
Respondent’s (or their 2 4 1 1 2 9
representative’s) lack of preparation 0 % 1 % 4 % 5 %
Respondent did not know what they 4 4 6 2

wanted 5 % 2 % 2 % 1 %
Respondent did not want to invest 1 7 8 6 8

the time 0 % 4 % 2 % 4 %
4 6 4 4
Respondent’s representative had 6 9 3 0 1 1 2 3
limited or no authority to settle 8 % 1 % 4 % 3 %
Respondent’s representative did not 5 2 3 9

have the time 7 % 1 % 1 % 5 %
1
Respondent needed legal 1 7 3 3 4
representation 0 % 7 % 1 % 2 %
Other Respondent (or representative) 4 6 3 4

conduct (See list below) 6 % 3 % 1 % 2 %
Needed more money

Felt the need to rush through the process
Respondents not negotiating in good faith.
Different theory, perspective, and perception
Don’t want to concede anything.
Table 25b. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Experience – Group C:
Respondent/Representative Conduct
potential respondent conduct.) [Group C – Respondent/Representative Conduct]
Group C – Video Mediation Experience

Respondent/Representative
Conduct 20 or less More than
video 20 video
# % # % # %
13
Respondent (or their representative)

used mediation to gather information
(discovery, case related to another 45 37. 56.
case, etc. 62 % 32 2% 30 6%

representative’s) “positional 42 38. 49.
conduct” (unrealistic, unreasonable) 59 % 33 4% 26 1%

conduct” (refused to discuss or
explore options, refused to listen, did 26 26. 24.
not show interest) 36 % 23 7% 13 5%

representative’s) “personal conduct” 8.1 9.4
(emotional, angry, disrespectful) 12 9% 7 % 5 %
Respondent’s (or their 14 9.3 22.

representative’s) lack of preparation 20 % 8 % 12 6%
Respondent did not know what they 3.5 3.8

wanted 5 4% 3 % 2 %
Respondent did not want to invest the 7.0 7.5

time 10 7% 6 % 4 %
Respondent’s representative had 49 41. 60.

limited or no authority to settle 68 % 36 9% 32 4%
Respondent’s representative did not 5.8 3.8

have the time 7 5% 5 % 2 %
Respondent needed legal 2.3 15.

representation 10 7% 2 % 8 1%
Other Respondent (or representative) 3.5 5.7
conduct (See previous table.) 6 4% 3 % 3 %
Table 26a. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Status – Group D: Administrative
Issues
(Question 79: Please choose the important administrative barriers that you find generally interfere with
resolution within this list of administrative issues.) [Group D – Administrative issues]
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
Group D – Administrative issues
# % # % # % # %

3 5 3 5
9 2 4 3
The mediation was not scheduled 3 0 6 4

properly 4 % 0 % 2 % 2 %
1
E-signature delays caused the 1 4 1 0 6 4
agreement to fall apart 9 % 2 % 3 % 4 %
I needed more support with

settlement agreement template 1 7 0 6 4
language 0 % 3 % 3 % 4 %
EEOC program procedures/rules 1 7 0 6 4

interfered with resolving the case 0 % 3 % 3 % 4 %
2
2 1 1 0 6 4
Other, please specify (See below) 9 % 7 % 6 % 6 %
DocUSign or electronic signature not available

The Agency does not have E-signature which would make Agreement signing efficient
Doc-U-sign ability for the parties, especially Charging Parties, will be a tremendous help or a private
section on the online portal for Mediators to send and retrieve signed settlement agreements to the parties.
E-signature delays is a challenge in processing timely closures. I would not necessarily it causes settlements
to fall apart.
Exchange of agreement documents
Getting signatures on everything a problem
Charging parties, in particular, often furnish lots of information through the "portal" and thus operate with
the belief that said information has been provided, pre-mediation, to respondents. That, of course, is not the
case and the agency needs address
I do not like the rule that prevents me from asking for mediation statements prior to the mediation session. It
makes the mediation session take longer for me to learn the relevant facts and issues.
Don't always have current agreement language or specific requirements for agreements. Multiple versions
of Agreement to Mediate and Settlement Agreement format.
Disorganization at the EEOC level and bureaucratic lunacy and disregard of important follow up
procedures and lack of administration at helping the neutral in getting opposing parties to schedule the
mediation.
Time limits to resolve the case.
Timeliness of parties signing agreements and returning them to the EEOC
Delay in Respondent getting separate agreement to Charging Party/counsel
Unrealistic demands
The 7 days revocation period from CP's over 4. at least 2 backed out of a deal this year only because they
wanted more money and attempted to renegotiate after having agreed on an amount.
The parties lack a sense of urgency when completing their side agreements
The EEOC Mediation Settlement Agreement is a problem. That language needs to be revised to alleviate
obstacles and resistance from Respondents to execute it, it is 9% of the time a problem.
Some Respondent don't bring any authority or anything to offer the other side.
Table 26b. Top Three Barriers to Resolution, Tabulated by Mediator Experience – Group D:
Administrative Issues
(Question 79: Please choose the important administrative barriers that you find generally interfere with
resolution within this list of administrative issues.) [Group D – Administrative issues]

Group D – Administrative issues video 20 video
# % # % # %
13
The mediation was not scheduled 4.7 0.0

properly 4 3% 4 % 0 %
E-signature delays caused the 14 9.3 20.

agreement to fall apart 19 % 8 % 11 8%
I needed more support with

settlement agreement template 8.1 5.7
language 10 7% 7 % 3 %
EEOC program procedures/rules 9.3 3.8

interfered with resolving the case 10 7% 8 % 2 %
21 14. 32.
Others (See previous table.) 29 % 12 0% 17 1%
Table 27a. Are There In-Person Mediation Tactics That Are No Longer Effective in Video Mediation?
(Question 80: Are there any in-person mediation tactics that you can no longer use effectively in video
mediation?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

1 0 4 0 2 0 4 0
6 % 7 % 7 % 2 %
Yes 1 1 1 2
1 6 1 9 1
9 % 5 % 5 % 9 %
No 8 8 8 7
9 4 4 9 2 1 3 9
7 % 2 % 2 % 3 %
Table 27b. In-Person Mediation Tactics That Are No Longer Effective in Video Mediation – Verbatim
Responses
(Question 81: Please identify these tactics you can no longer use effectively.)
Signing agreement to mediate and signing the confidentiality agreement.

We need to be able to get signatures at the close of the resolved mediation. We cannot accomplish this on
video at this time.
Eye contact, body language in some cases where the video on one end was of the entire room, bonding with
the CP.
Having the parties look each other in the eye and apologize/hug/shake hands, etc.
Asking counsel or the party's representative to step out so I can speak to them separately or allowing them to
ask to speak to me separately. I now do that by phone call with them.
Leaving the room and allowing both parties to sit in separate caucuses to use time as an advantage. I do this
less on video.
Building a personal connection is much harder, less likely; can't see all of the body language
Certain non-verbal tactics that can't be used on video platform.
Controlling caucus environment. Executing agreements.
Escorting the parties to and from the bathroom and in and out of secure doors within the secure building.
I think it’s easier in in person mediations to create a bond with the charging party especially. It’s also more
difficult to give immediate feedback and reflection when someone, either CP or R is giving a long
dissertation.
I think you do not form the same level of connection with either the charging party or Respondent over zoom
that you do in person.
In person communication. Some mediation participants are comfortable with video communication. Others
are not. For those others, they do not relate to persons on a screen in the same way they relate to other
persons in person. If the EEOC goes to video mediations only, for reasons of economy or efficiency, or for
whatever other reasons, it will simply be tough luck for those who do not grow up with computers or are
unfamiliar with, or uncomfortable with, video communication.
It is more difficult to ask questions "in front of" the parties.
Providing coffee/water/snack to the parties to help establish rapport and commonality.
Side bars with the parties' attorneys was more effective in person. With VIDEO, I have to create another
breakout room or the attorneys will call each other directly.
Sometimes it is more difficult to have "off the cuff" discussions with counsel (without client present) on video
than in person.
The power of presence
Too many to list: reading the body language of the participants; having their attention in person to keep the
parties on task; building a relationship; etc.
Table 28. Top Three Factors That Facilitated Resolution
(Question 30: In the list that follows, please choose the top 3 factors you believe facilitated resolution.
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
Mediation Context Factors
# % # % # % # %
Total number of mediators 1 1

3 5 3 5 3
9 2 4 3 9
VIDEO mediation provided the

ability to continue a mediation 6 6 5 6
because of less external time 8 3 3 9 1 3 3 4
constraints (e 8 % 6 % 8 % 4 %
The ability to keep these parties out

of the same room or adjacent rooms 3 4 3 3
as compared to an in-person 5 7 2 2 1 5 1 2
mediation 1 % 2 % 2 % 7 %
VIDEO mediation influenced the 3 4 3 3

parties to be less formal in their 5 6 2 2 1 5 1 0
interactions 0 % 2 % 2 % 6 %
2 4 1
I see more effective decision-making
3 2 2 0 5 8
processes
0 % 1 % 5 % 4 %
The VIDEO screen allowed for focus 1 1 1 2

on the participants’ faces in a manner 2 9 1 9 2 1 3
not possible in person 6 % 0 % 4 % 2 %
The VIDEO background humanized 1 2

the parties in a manner not possible 1 2 1 1 6 6
in person 6 % 1 % 2 % 3 %
Events that occurred in the 1 1

background of the mediation created 1 0 2 9 9
a positive environment for settlement 4 % 6 % 3 % 5 %
1
6 0 6
Other (See below.) 9 % 5 % 2 % 2 9
Charging Parties' emotions seem to sometimes be more comfortable in a home environment. Attorneys seem
LESS performative, hostile and adversarial which allows settlement to be facilitated easier. Both parties
seem to enjoy the lack of travel.
Video allows people to be more comfortable in their surroundings. They don't have to deal with coming
downtown and deal with going through security which is stressful.
Video mediation allowed the parties to be more comfortable in their own settings vs. being in a conference
room.
Reduced administrative costs encouraged Respondents to be willing to pay more to settle nuisance value
claims. Respondents representatives were more comfortable during joint session with angry/combatant
Charging Parties than they would be in person.
Video detracts at the present time—too easy for the parties to disengage.
Table 29 – Novel Factors Not Seen in In-Person Mediation.
(Question 76 -Please explain any novel factors or conduct not seen in in-person mediation that in your opinion
was important to the resolution of this case.)
I notice that legal counsel is less adversarial in approach, but they have a tendency to not allow the
client to speak for themselves.
Charging Party and Respondent legal representatives were more open to meet with each other
privately in the break out rooms to hash through their differences to resolve the issues.
Being able to send chat message during mediation or do a quick break out and then reconvene.
Being able to talk separately with counsel.
Generally, I think participants are more relaxed via video. I see a "we're in this together"
mentality right from the beginning in terms of relating to the use of technology in the mediation
context.
Humanizing situation via video, "everyone is in the same boat"
Many of our pro se Charging Parties are visibly uncomfortable in federal buildings and/or office
settings. I see things like arms crossed jackets on, keys out, etc. Conversely, many Respondents
and most attorneys are right at home in an office setting. They own room, take up lots of space,
etc. The screen helps equalize this power imbalance.
Overall, I see participants more engaged, better attitudes and less tense. Less intimidated and more
focus. Respondent not having concerns about long and expensive air travel which they can now put
towards the settlement of the claim. I used to hear about this all the time. No concerns about local
travel which is stressing and it delayed people into the mediation. All the time I used to get calls
about being stuck in traffic, delayed at the Airport, accident on the road, don't hear that anymore.
Participants now are punctual and way less stressed when they come to mediation and are ready
and focused to work on resolving. It is even helpful to us as Mediators. I used to have to do 2, 3, 4,
hour drives priors to a mediation stressing me and making me less effective. I find myself more
effective now because I am less stress about travel and more focused. I did an excellent job before,
for sure, but I get complemented all the time now about how well I am handling Zoom mediation
and how good at it I have become. I was completely intimidated by Zoom before I started, I did not
like it and after my first Zoom mediation and thought, wow!! Why was I so worried about this, this
is an amazing platform for what we do, amazing! I was blown away by how effective Zoom
mediations are and I understand in the private sector they use them ALL the time.
Parties are more enthusiastic and more body gestures, facial expressions
Parties were more relaxed in their personal environments, they were more friendly than when in
person, and the Charging Party felt less intimidated when unrepresented
Parties, especially the Charging Party, seemed to be more comfortable being at their home vs in a
conference room. Even when the Charging Party was in their attorney's office they seemed to be
more comfortable than when at the EEOC's office/conference room. Being more comfortable, I
believe, allowed them to be more calm, be able to listen better, and be able to think things through
more rationally than emotionally.
People see my face up close, and I see theirs. So there is a better connection. People are more
relaxed participating from home. Charging Parties have less fear. Charging Parties can walk the
dog and nurse the baby. Attorneys like that they can attend to other work in their offices while I am
talking with the other side, and some attorneys prefer not having to sit and chat all day with their
clients. Attorneys like to be able to work while I am in the other room with the opposition.
Everyone loves that they don't have to rush to get car out of NYC garage and don't have long
commute home. It was easy for people to keep on mediating into the evening. The parties
sometimes eat dinner while we are resolving the settlement agreement.
The more personal environment lowers the anxiety levels of participants - including eliminating
tensions over in-person confrontations.
Easier inclusion of decision makers out of the area, easier to schedule.
Familiarity and security of being able to participate from home may have made some complainants
less nervous and therefore more receptive to settling.
Flexibility, accessibility, capacity for distant parties on the same side to participate more
economically (time & money) in the mediation from different locations
The parties' flexibility to simultaneously handle personal issues (e.g. sick children, after school
care for children/parents, home repairs, other family responsibilities etc.) while mediating
facilitated continued negotiations and my ability to reach settlements. These types of factors would
interrupt in-person mediations, require second sessions etc. Also, I find that people are much
happier/more patient in their own homes and offices, where they are most comfortable and can get
snacks and handle other work while on breaks, than they are being trapped in mediation rooms. I
believe this happiness bump makes a big difference in facilitating settlements.
Effective listening; I listen to each side about 20-30 minutes separately so they can share their
position on the case.
I have seen the respondents be more open to reaching a fair settlement.
I personally love getting a glimpse into participants work/home space and find talking points to
connect with them, whether a work of art, a degree from a prestigious university or a beloved
family pet.
The parties got a peek into the each other's world which helped create empathy.
The video background allowed all parties, to include the mediator, to be humanized and provided
ice breaking points to build rapport and focus on a resolution.
Respondent is saving time and money by mediating online. They can use that money toward
settlement
E-mediation/Video mediation enables the parties to avoid some of the challenges associated with
scheduling a mediation by reducing or eliminating travel or time zone considerations. It helps the
parties to feel more comfortable because there is a reduced threat of the potential for physical
violence or an emotional outburst. The parties can feel more comfortable about the privacy of
their conversations in breakout rooms as they will not be overheard by the other party. Some
attorneys will help parties to settle by reducing fees because they didn't have to travel or incur
other potential expenses for the video mediation. Documents can be shared and edited with the
parties real time on screen. I can share charts and models with the parties far more easily than in
person. Video mediation is much more effective than in person mediation in part because the
parties and the mediator are not limited to the resources or amenities available in a physical space
or room. In a virtual environment, the parties can have access to more resources/flexibilities that
can help them to settle the Charge.
Same issue with unrealistic monetary settlements.
A case with issues outside EEOC jurisdiction that Respondent wanted to resolve along with EEOC
case.
I think the biggest challenged in any mediation is the idea of the principle of the matter---and
getting parties be willing to move forward.
Past year’s social unrest and mood in the country: I see Charging Parties that see themselves as
victims, and it adversely affects expectations and willingness to settle. Also, some respondents
consider a Charging Party “playing the victim” hence unwilling to consider even a nuisance
settlement.
Upon entering a Zoom mediation a Charging Party noticed that the Respondent invited a high
ranking official to participate. She was noticeably uncomfortable and expressed her concerns.
The official agreed not to participate during the opening statement, but joined in during the
caucus. This helped facilitate an environment of comfort and empowered the Charging Party
during the entire process. She felt heard and valued.
Table 30a. Top Three Insurance Adjuster Behaviors/Actions that Facilitated Resolution
(Question 82: For cases where you spoke with the adjuster or were in conference listening to the insurance
adjuster: Please rank the top 3 factors you believe facilitated resolutions from the list of statements below.)
All Mediators
who ranked a
factor as a top Number and Percent of Mediators
three Ranking Each Factor
%
(of
139
respo Ran Ran Ran Row
nd- ked ked ked Tota
# ing) #1 #2 #3 l
# 23 22 20
Adjuster was flexible, open 65 47% 100
straightforward % 35% 34% 31% %
# 24 22 14
60 43% 100
Adjuster was realistic % 40% 37% 23% %
# 23 25 17
65 47% 100
Adjuster was prepared % 35% 38% 26% %
# 4 7 3
Adjuster knew what they 14 10% 100
wanted % 29% 50% 21% %
Adjuster was willing to # 18 11 21
listen to my 50 36% 100
communications % 36% 22% 42% %
Adjuster was willing to # 6 12 13
listen to the company 31 22% 100
representative % 19% 39% 42% %
# 6 12 16
Adjuster was willing to 34 24% 100
listen to the Charging Party % 18% 35% 47% %
Table 30b. Top Three Insurance Adjuster Behaviors/Actions that Facilitated Resolution, Tabulated by
Mediator Status
(Question 82: For cases where you spoke with the adjuster or were in conference listening to the insurance
adjuster: Please rank the top 3 factors you believe facilitated resolutions from the list of statements below.)
Contract Pro bono

Staff Mediators Mediators Mediators
Total = 52 Total = 34 Total = 53
# % # % # %
Adjuster was flexible, open
straightforward 27 52% 14 41% 24 45%
Adjuster was realistic 25 48% 12 35% 23 43%
Adjuster was prepared 27 52% 13 38% 25 47%
Adjuster knew what they wanted 6 12% 3 9% 5 9%
Adjuster was willing to listen to
my communications 22 42% 10 29% 18 34%
the company representative 15 29% 6 18% 10 19%
the Charging Party 13 25% 11 32% 10 19%
Table 31. Were Insurance Adjusters Able to Effectively Communicate with the Parties over Zoom?
(Question 83: For mediations where the Insurance adjuster spoke to the parties: Was the Insurance adjuster
able to effectively communicate with the parties over Zoom?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
0 % 4 % 3 % 3 %
Yes 6 8 5 5
6 7 3 4 1 2 1 5
7 % 7 % 2 % 8 %
No 4 2 9 3
4 % 1 % 2 % 1 %
Not sure 2 1 3 4
2 9 4 9 1 2
9 % 6 % 9 % 4 %
Table 32a. Multiple Experience Mediating with Mediation Participants

(Question 36: I have had multiple previous experiences mediating with the following parties:)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

3 5 3 5
9 2 4 3
6 8 5 5
Charging Party’s Attorney or other 9 8 4 8 2 9 2 5
Representative 5 % 6 % 0 % 9 %
6 8 5 4
8 2 4 7 1 0 2 5
Respondent 6 % 5 % 7 % 4 %
6 8 5 5
Respondent’s Attorney or other 9 7 4 8 2 9 2 1
Representative 3 % 6 % 0 % 7 %
4 6 2 2
5 2 3 7 1 9 1 5
Insurance adjuster 8 % 5 % 0 % 3 %
Table 32b. Multiple Previous Experience Mediating with Charging Parties’ Attorneys or Other
Representative
(Question 37: You have indicated that you had multiple previous experience with one or more mediation
participants, please estimate the percentage of prior mediations where a previous party or representative
attended: CHARGING PARTY’S ATTORNEY OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
responding 6 % 4 % 9 % 3 %
1 3 2
1 4 2 2 2
10% or less 2 % 1 % 6 % 5 %
6 7 5 4
11% - 20% 5 % 3 % 1 % 1 %
1 1
0 9 5 7
21% - 30% 9 % 4 % 1 % 4 %
1
8 4 5 0
31% - 40% 7 % 6 % 1 % 0 %
1 1 1
1 4 6 5 7
41% - 50% 2 % 7 % 1 % 4 %
5 9 0 0
51% - 60% 4 % 4 % 0 % 0 %
1
5 2 1 4
61% - 70% 4 % 1 % 2 % 1 %
1 2 2 1
1 3 0 6 7
71% - 80% 1 % 9 % 5 % 4 %
8 0 0 0
81% - 90% 7 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
1 2 1 1
1 7 0 1 7
91% - 100% 5 % 9 % 2 % 4 %
Table 32c. Multiple Previous Experience Mediating with Respondents

attended: RESPONDENT)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
responding 4 % 1 % 5 % 8 %
2 2 2 2
1 2 0 7 2
10% or less 6 % 8 % 4 % 4 %
1
5 2 7 1
11% - 20% 4 % 1 % 1 % 2 %
4 7 0 0
21% - 30% 3 % 3 % 0 % 0 %
3 5 0 0
31% - 40% 2 % 2 % 0 % 0 %
1
8 2 0 6
41% - 50% 6 % 5 % 0 % 1 %
0 0 0 0
51% - 60% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
1 2 0 0
61% - 70% 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 %
2 2
3 5 7 8
71% - 80% 2 % 2 % 4 % 5 %
1
2 0 0 0
81% - 90% 9 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
4 4 4 3
3 2 1 6 0 3
91% - 100% 1 % 9 % 6 % 6 %
Table 32d. Multiple Previous Experience Mediating with Respondents’ Attorneys or Other
Representatives
attended: RESPONDENT’S ATTORNEY OR OTHER REPRESENTATIVE)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
8 0 4 0 1 0 2 0
responding % % % %
1 4 1
9
1 9 2 7
%
10% or less 6 % 4 8 % 4 %
5 5 0 9
11% - 20% 4 % 2 % 0 % 2 %
1
6 2 0
7
% % %
21% - 30% 5 1 0 4 %
2 2 5 0
31% - 40% 2 % 1 % 1 % 0 %
3 5 0 4
41% - 50% 3 % 2 % 0 % 1 %
5 7 5 0
51% - 60% 4 % 3 % 1 % 0 %
2 5 0 0
61% - 70% 2 % 2 % 0 % 0 %
1 2 1
5
1 7 1 3 7
%
71% - 80% 5 % 0 % 1 4 %
1 1 2
9
1 5 4 6
%
81% - 90% 3 % 6 % 5 % 2
2 3 1 2
2 6 1 0 6 6
91% - 100% 2 % 3 % 3 % 6 %
Table 32e. Multiple Previous Experience Mediating with Insurance Adjusters
attended: INSURANCE ADJUSTER)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
1 1 1 1
0 0 0 0
Total number of mediators 5 0 3 0 0 1 0
responding 1 % 2 % 9 % 0 %
5 6 5 4
2 7 2 3 6 0
10% or less 9 % 0 % 5 % 4 %
1 1 1 4
8 3 1 0
11% - 20% 9 % 4 % 1 % 4 %
1 1 1 2
4 3 1 0
21% - 30% 7 % 4 % 1 % 2 %
1
2 0 1 0
31% - 40% 1 % 0 % 1 % 0 %
1
8 9 1 0
41% - 50% 4 % 3 % 1 % 0 %
0 0 0 0
51% - 60% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
0 0 0 0
61% - 70% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
0 0 0 0
71% - 80% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
0 0 0 0
81% - 90% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
2 3 0 0
91% - 100% 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 %
Table 33a. Impact of Multiple Previous Experience Mediating with Mediation Participants
(Question 37: In general, for mediations where you have had a prior case with one party (or their
counsel/representative) how strongly did this prior experience impact the mediation outcome?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

responding 0 0 0 0
9 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
8 % 6 % 1 % 1 %
2 2 1 2
2 7 1 8 9 9
No impact at all 6 % 3 % 4 % 9 %
1 1 1
1 2 7 9 6
Minimal impact 2 % 3 % 4 % 5 %
3 2 2 4
3 3 1 8 9 1 2
Some impact 2 % 3 % 6 % 3 %
2 2 2 1
2 0 1 4 9 0
Strong Impact 0 % 1 % 6 % 3 %
1
8 3 5 3
Very strong impact 8 % 6 % 1 % 1 %
Table 33b. Impact of Multiple Previous Experience Mediating with Mediation Participants – Verbatim
Responses
(Question38: How is the mediation impacted if you have had prior experience mediating with one or more
participants?)
Attorneys know your style and I know theirs

Awareness of their negotiation style, respect for me built from prior mediations.
Building rapport and trust with the participant made for a smoother process.
Built rapport and trust.
Established rapport, background on a particular individual's communication style.
In cases where I have had Respondent Attorneys more than once they always try to get it resolved reasonably
because we resolved previously.
Know willingness of Mediator to successfully mediate the matter.
Knowledge of the process
Mediation is a relationship business. Rapport and, most importantly, trust and faith in the mediator that is
already established at the outset goes a long way to an efficient process and a good outcome.
Normally when the Charging Party is represented, the mediation either lasts longer or does not resolve due
to the unreasonable resolution.
Positive
Prior experience and knowledge of the process.
The answer here depends on the experience, good or bad. Mine are 95% good. The one CP attorney I just
did not want to work with. Other I found it helped because we know each other and generally they trusted me
to do my job well and professionally to make useful suggestions, etc.
The attorneys felt I was neutral, did not have a stake in the outcome and therefore orally expressed to their
client that they had a trust in my knowledge, skills and abilities. They openly stated they worked with me
before and even if the case did not resolve, that my professionalism in the process was a reason they
encouraged the current client to participate in mediation.
The parties are more comfortable and are aware of how the parties may proceed in mediating the matter.
The party and mediator know how far each can go.
The party is familiar with your mediation style and fairness.
The party trust me and it's more amenable to resolve the case because they already know me
There is more trust in the mediation and the mediator's ability to provide a more favorable forum for
resolution.
They are more familiar with you as the Mediator and the process and have more buy-in on the settlement
process.
They trust me to give them accurate information on how to get to a settlement.
Trust
Unrealistic expectations and using the scheduling of the mediation to negotiate a settlement prior to
mediation.
When there is multiple prior experiences with counsel, the familiarity helps to expedites the process.
Additionally, the trust that develops over time enhances the chance for resolution.
You build professional rapport with those you get to know. You also learn to anticipate road blocks and how
to better handle them. You get to know the strengths and the weaknesses of the participants you get to know
and how to use those for a better outcome. They learn to trust you as a Mediator.
Table 34. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “For EEOC cases that were resolved using video
mediation, the settlements at these EEOC mediations often resolve actual or putative legal claims in other
legal forums (e.g., state tort or contract claims, wage and hour law, workers compensation, etc.)”
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
7 % 6 % 4 % 7 %
6 7 6 7
7 9 3 0 1 7 2 0
Agree 4 % 2 % 6 % 6 %
2 2 2 2
2 2 0 5 4
Disagree 4 % 9 % 6 % 9 %
1
8 1 8 5
Not Sure 9 % 5 % 2 % 2 %
Table 35. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: I find that parties tend to lose concentration sooner in
video mediation than in my in-person mediations.
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
6 % 6 % 3 % 7 %
1 2 1
1 2 2 6 6
Agree 3 % 1 % 6 % 6 %
5 7 4 4
6 9 3 4 1 8 1 9
Disagree 3 % 4 % 1 % 8 %
2 2 2 3
3 8 1 4 6 1 5
Not Sure 0 % 1 % 6 % 3 %
Table 36. Occurrence of Video Fatigue
(Question107: From my experience, I find that video mediation fatigue appears on average: )
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
2 % 4 % 1 % 7 %
1 2 0 0
In 1 hour or less 1 % 1 % 0 % 0 %
1
4 0 9 0
Over 1 hour to 2 hours 4 % 0 % 4 % 0 %
1 2 1
1 3 7 4 4
Over 2 hours to 3 hours 3 % 3 % 5 % 5 %
2 1 1 2
2 1 6 9 1 7
Over 3 hours to 4 hours 1 % 7 % 4 % 0 %
6 7 3 5
6 2 3 5 8 2 9
Over 4 hours 3 % 3 % 8 % 2 %
Table 37. Degree of Agreement to the Statement: “If you also mediate in other forums (state and local
programs, FMCS, AAA, FINRA, etc.: "My experience with video mediation in other forums is similar to
what I have answered here."
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %
responding 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 1 0 2 0
6 % 9 % 9 % 8 %
1
9 6 0 9
5 1 7 1 0 2 3
Agree 1 % 6 % 9 % 6 %
0 0 0 0
Disagree 0 % 0 % 0 % 0 %
3
9 3 0 7
Neither agree nor disagree 5 % 3 % 0 % 2 %
Table 38. Mediation Tactics and Techniques Used by Mediators in Other Forums
(Question 84: If you also mediate in other forums check if you have used any of the following mediation tactics
and techniques not used at EEOC.)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

responding 2 7 1 1 2 7
4 % 1 % 4 % 9 %
2 2 2 3
9 7 5 3
Pre communications 7 % 3 % 1 % 3 %
2 2 3
Dedicated pre-mediation technology 1 9 5 3
session 5 % 1 % 1 % 3 %
1 2 2
7 7 5 0
Informational videos 4 % 3 % 1 % 0 %
2
8 0 0 2
Asynchronous mediation 2 % 0 % 0 % 2 %
1
4 0 0 1
Online blind bidding 1 % 0 % 0 % 1 %
2 3 2
1 6 5 0
Others 5 % 4 % 1 % 0 %
Table 39a. Are There Classifications of EEOC Charges that Mediators Find More Difficult to Mediate
by Video?
(Question 60: Are there particular EEOC classifications of EEOC charges (race, age, gender, etc.) that you
find more difficult to mediate by video compared to in-person?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status

# % # % # % # %

0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
5 % 6 % 3 % 6 %
Yes 4 7 4 0
4 % 3 % 1 % 0 %
No 1
1 9 9 9 0
0 6 4 3 2 6 3 0
1 % 3 % 2 % 6 %
Table 39b. Classifications of EEOC Charges that Mediators Find More Difficult to Mediate by Video
(Question 61: If you answered “Yes” to the question above, please identify those types of charges you find more
difficult to mediate in video compared to in-person.)
Race
Ethnic Origin
Gender
Sexual Harassment
Age
Disability
Transgender cases
Cases requiring the use of ASL. It is a 3D language and video is a 2D format.
Table 40. Power Imbalance – Technology Gap
(Question 85: Did you mediate any cases where there was a power imbalance you could not resolve due solely
to a technology gap between the parties?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
2 % 5 % 2 % 5 %
Yes 3 0 5 6
3 % 0 % 1 % 2 %
No 1
9 0 9 9
9 7 4 0 2 5 3 4
9 % 5 % 1 % 3 %
Table 41. Mediators’ Description of their Experience Conducting EEOC Mediations Out of the Office
(Question 99: How would you describe your experience conducting EEOC mediations out of the office during
the closure of government workplaces?)
All
Mediator
s Mediator Status
# % # % # % # %

0 0 4 0 2 0 3 0
0 % 4 % 2 % 4 %
1
It was more difficult conducting 6 5 4 3
EEOC mediations out of the office. 6 % 2 % 3 % 1 %
6 7 5 5
It was easier conducting EEOC 6 3 3 3 1 0 2 9
mediations out of the office. 3 % 2 % 1 % 0 %
3 2 3 3
It was similar to conducting EEOC 3 1 1 3 6 1 8
mediations in the office. 1 % 0 % 8 % 3 %
Table 42. Improvements/Adjustments to Equipment or Scheduling – Verbatim Responses
(Question 100: What improvement/adjustments to equipment or scheduling would you recommend?
Note: “None”, “N/A” excluded)
A formal introduction by the EEOC of the mediator to the parties so when the pro bono mediator call the
parties to invite them to mediate, the pro bono mediator doesn't have to jump through hoops to establish that
he/she is calling on behalf of the EEOC
Communicating with parties beforehand that the mediation could take up to 4-6 hours, etc. (Realistic
preparation).
EEOC need more information presented up front to Respondents and Charging Parties regarding the
difference between a person attending Mediation and/or presenting the Position Statement.
A calendar where there parties could schedule their own mediations through the portal or website would be
very helpful and a big time saver. Also, it would be great if the agency would invest in some signing
assistance platform such as Docusign for the settlement agreements ( another time saver)
Ability to have the parties sign documents electronically such as docusign would be a huge help.
Being able to obtain e-signatures or DocUSign on the spot once the mediation has resolved.
digital signature, printer, additional monitor, camera, desk, comfortable chair
It would help if I had a mobile hotspot and the ability to use DocUSign
Make sure pre mediation forms are available to all parties on the Portal and give us DocuSign for e-
signatures for MSA's.
Sit stand desk and Doc-U-sign capability for the agreements to be signed and returned quicker.
Streamline process for signing settlement agreements - have agency approve and sign at the same time then
send to parties OR have parties sign and then agency get fully signed copy to the parties.
Transmission of signature ready documents is still challenging.
Automated scheduling software/calendar. Workflow software.
green screen, online scheduling system, online document center, supplies, ergonomic chair, veridesk, larger
monitors (two), standing light
Although using Zoom was a first time experience for me, the platform seems to meet the needs of all the
participants involved. It is true that some participants are technology challenged, but we typically work
through those together with more experience people, or on some occasions, a company may have their IT
person intervene and help support the process.
As long as the laptop and printers are up to par we can do our job efficiently.
Having multiple monitors is helpful to be able to have the video mediation while reviewing the documents
and taking notes on a computer separate from the screen you are mediating on. Having a printer can be
helpful as well.
Headsets
I have a sit/stand desk and extra monitor which are all great and make this all work. Having an EEOC
printer would be very helpful. (I currently have a work around using my own as needed which I try to rarely
use). Having docusign would be great. Electronic signatures can still be a challenge. Having a calendar
feature I can share with parties to select available dates would be very helpful and could make things more
efficient.
I like to refer parties to the portal in order to execute the Agreement to Mediate and Confidentiality
Agreement. This does not come easy to many of my parties resulting in me having to help the parties
navigate the portal in order to execute the agreements.
I would like to have a banner or background screen that has the Agency logo on my background.
I would love to have an additional monitor.
If feasible pay for internet connection. Have comprehensive training on ZOOM.
It would help me to have a printer/scanner
Large monitor with camera and audio instead of only small laptop
Larger monitors and maybe more comfortable chairs for home, better back support.
Prior to mediation, training on the use of the platform chosen should be required. I ran into several
attorney/es1/counselors that claimed they had experienced and obviously did not.
Provide a cell phone with internet sharing capability to all mediators to use as a back up to ensure great
internet connection.
providing claimants a space where they can have a device with good internet access
Support by EEOC (On-Site IT Support; Two Monitors/connected by IT personnel; Printer/Scanner provided

by Commission with preparation and maintenance.
The system has been unstable about 15% of the time, which requires me to continue the mediation via
telephone. This can interfere with any momentum that was established.
Continue to allow the mediator to choose the platform with which they are most familiar/comfortable.
Continued use of mediations outside of the office as an option!
I think over zoom it is harder to form the connection with CP and Respondents.
In-person mediation; I do the scheduling
Make sure there are no schedule conflicts
Remove arbitrary office hours
When counsel are on both sides, I'd encourage the EEOC to encourage counsel to communicate - even
explore settlement - before the mediation session in order to create momentum going into the mediation.
Zoom with break-out rooms is best.

Table 43. Work-Life Balance: Verbatim Responses
(Question: How has working at home affected your work-life balance?)
I feel less stressed due to the lack of commute and I am generally more relaxed.
I love teleworking. I made the choice to live in the suburbs, resulting in a daily three-hour round trip
commute. I now sleep 9 hours instead of 6. I couldn't be happier! Now that I have a designated workspace,
it is so easy to work from home. I can work around an appointment or a brief personal call without
interrupting my work day.
I will say it is convenient and safer due to not having to travel.
Improved it. Do not have to commute to subway station and take subway to and from work. Easy to get
lunch, coffee, etc. at home
It beats taking a one-way ninety-minute train or almost three-hour drive to downtown Los Angeles Federal
Building for in person mediation. It is less stressful, and I have more time for other things on the days I have
EEOC mediation.
It has been excellent! I save, on an average, three (3) hours of commute time, each day, with video
mediations vs in person mediations.
It has greatly improved. I don't have to commute and I am able to take 15 min exercise breaks to improve my
mental focus.
It has improved my work/life balance immensely. Telework has cut down on hours of commuting per day
and has saved hundreds of dollars (gas, parking and tolls)
It has made a world of difference to be able to do Video mediations. There is nothing more frustrating than
arranging travel for in person mediations and then have a party throw a wrench in the process by cancelling
last minute which costs the Mediator money out of pocket as well as their valuable time.
It has positively affected my work life balance in the sense that I can start my personal life at an earlier time
in the day since commuting has been taken out of the workplace situation. During work time, I am more
productive since at home and have less distractions; therefore I am more focused on my work tasks. I am
also able to enjoy my time off without the pressure of feeling that I have to get on public transportation (
risking my health every day). I have also been able to incorporate positive habits and routines such as
mediation at lunch time and exercise before and after work.
It has reduced the time I spent in traffic traveling to and from the mediation.
It has saved me time not to have to travel, find parking, etc. I can also do things like grab a snack more
easily when I am working from home and conducting Zoom mediations.
Less commuting time means more time to devote to mediation.
Less travel, so more time.
More balance due to not having to travel
More time at home due to lack of traveling requirements.
My work/life balance has been improved by elimination of the commute.
Positively impacted due to lack of stress for travel, parking issues. Flexibility to perform duties in a less
stressful environment.
Since I travel for mediations my work/life balance improved with working from home. However, I do miss
traveling for work.
Working at home positively affects my work life balance because I do not lose time driving to the office, I can
have healthy lunch so my weight has been positively affected, I have less distractions like public walking into
the office asking to see me, I can conduct mediations with more flexibility, I am not worried about picking up
some ailment and bringing home to my family, I have not had a cold or any sickness since working from
home
It has immensely improved it! Mediating on Zoom is tremendously effective, has way more pluses than
minuses, and makes my life as well as that of the parties so much easier.
Definite improvement! No travel time for me which often resulted in my being stuck in traffic coming and
going to the office. Less pressure to "hurry up" and wrap up a mediation (in order to get a jump on traffic)
since I am already home. Children can finally catch the school bus to and from school and get dropped off at
home as opposed to before/aftercare. They don't have to get up extra early or stay late at before/aftercare
since currently I don't have to drive to the office. No before/after care expenses, no parking expenses, no
wear and tear on vehicle. Very grateful as I know others have not fared as well.
positively - more flexibility
I love it. I actually get more accomplished due to less distractions and actually work longer.
It's been great and as a contract mediator I am making more money than in the first 19 years.
It has greatly improved alongside my productivity at work
It is amazing. I have the additional time to do an abundance of housekeeping with IMS, call back parties,
and communicate with supervisors and teammates. I am also able to ensure required training is completed.
The non commute time helps!
I've been to have more productive work hours.
Made it better. More time to prepare for cases and focus.
Working from home has improved my work/life balance. There is far less stress, I am more productive with
work AND my other pursuits. I am also far happier, and I am able to save more money. My home and
family - a far more positive environment.
It has helped to reduce stress. Also, I have more ability to speak, respond to emails, and return calls with the
parties sooner in that I am not away from my desk/office while mediating.
It has improved tremendously. I now feel less stressed, have less anxiety and I am much happier because I
get to spend more time with my wife and children. I no longer have to take them to day care, which also
saves me money, less wear and tear on my vehicle, less gas. Additionally, my physical health has improved
because now that I have more time, I can go to the gym. My family is also much happier.
Working from home has been very good.

I'm not stressed from the long drive to and from work (in office).
I feel more comfortable in my "home" or "own" space.
I'm far more productive in the amount of work I can complete at home.
It is the best thing ever! I love my job much more now because I have more time for my family and to go to
the gym to maintain my health. The EEOC is probably the only federal agency that does not provide a few
hours a week for employees to use for the gym or personal health. The time I save from going to the office, I
use it to maintain my physical activity and sacrifice less quality time from the family. Such activities provide
more focus and motivation to be a mediator and my supervisor had told me that I am very effective and that I
utilize my time very efficiently. I believe Mediators should not return to the office because video mediations
have increased acceptance rates tremendously from R and CP's and consequently increased the number of
positive resolutions.
Better work-life management
GREATLY improved it.
Improved and made better.
Improved it.
It has been great.
It has been very helpful.
It has been very helpful.
It has improved my work/life balance tremendously.
It has made finding the balance easier.
It has positively impacted my work/life balance and has made me a better mediator.
It was improved.
Working at home has had a very positive effect on my work/life balance and I hope we can continue to work
remotely, using the technology that has been made available to us.
working at home positively impacted my work/life balance
Yes, in a positive way!
positively
It's been challenging. I moved to Dallas (August 2020) for my position under the assumption I'd go into an
office, but never did. Because of the isolation, I started occasionally going to a co-working space to perform
admin work, just so I can interact with people. I truly believe I can effectively perform 100% of my job
remotely; however, I also believe it's unhealthy to not interact with people for extended periods of time.
I work longer most of the time and check email more often than when I was in the office
I'm working more
Yes I find myself working a lot more, but I enjoy during mediation over zoom vs long distance travel.
Yes. I work more
Have had to establish and adhere to self-imposed cutoff boundaries to achieve balance.
I have to leave home daily to separate and get a piece of mind.
In the beginning, I was working longer hours. I've since stopped and adhere to my work schedule.
It’s definitely had an impact. Some good and some bad.
My office is now in my home space but there is still some separation. I am handing it ok, but I would love to
work in the office at one to two days a week.
Somewhat.
Yes - it's comingled more
Table 44. Disadvantages of Using Video Mediation – Verbatim Responses
(Question 62: In the space below list the disadvantages that you have experienced using video mediation.)
Although you can see the face of the speaker more clearly on video, you lose the ability to see other visual
body language cues such as tapping fingers or feet etc., Sometimes the audio can be problematic and
internet connectivity issues pop up from time to time.
Inability to read non-verbal cues that could help a mediator’s thinking process.
It is difficult if one of the parties is in a conference room and the participants are not close to the camera. In
that case, it is more difficult to read facial expressions and body language. It also can sometimes be difficult
to hear what the participants are saying.
no mobility, no face to face, limited ability to bond and read body language
The use of intuition is not the same as it is in person. There are certain non-verbal techniques that a difficult
or impossible to use on video. Can't use a flip chart like I would in mediation. Can't place different options
for resolution, issues, etc. on flip chart paper and then tape them to walls of conference room for reference.
I have encountered the occasional person who takes the process less seriously because it is handled by video
and checks in an out of the mediation for other activities. This is very, very rare.
Participants can get distracted easily.
Party distractions are more frequent remotely either due to others in their homes or offices who are
competing for their attention. Ability to discern important, non-verbal cues is more difficult remotely.
Finally, I think it’s easier for the Complainant and/or Respondent to detach and say no over a video platform
than it is when parties are together physically.
Some participants lose connection and only a few had to actually dial in instead of using video.
Tendency of counsel to multi-task during breakout room activities/caucus.
The parties are often remote from their counsel and it seems that counsel has a difficult time persuading
their respective clients. Also the parties are often not focused as they would be in a live mediation.
Also it is harder to pick up cues from the party and many times the party will talk longer than necessary.
Disadvantages-There is no control over conversations or heated communication.
Maybe the ability to have face to face when someone is upset- the ability to diffuse. But we are in some trying
times and I would much rather do it via VIDEO. I have had a few sessions where the CP was very upset with
employer and there were some cases of a sexual harassment which caused trauma. These cases are best
meditated via VIDEO for the CP.
It makes getting the required documentation related to the mediation itself signed more difficult, but that has
improved over time. Harder to read body language. Harder to give cues in reflection. When it’s in person,
you can keep people till everything is signed.
Perhaps the fatigue that comes from sitting on a video screen all day.
Lack of incidental "hallway" conversations that are often useful.
The disadvantage of video mediations is the human contact.
The lack of personal encounter can lend to lack of engagement, even enable detachment from the process.
Getting an intuitive feel and sense of the parties and their counsel.
collecting paperwork that is requested by the EEOC
I just have a couple of cases where charging parties were driving or have somebody in the room listening to
the conversation
In person seems more personable
In some cases, being in person would allow the participant to be more respectful towards me. I had a couple
situations where I felt that because I was not there, the participant made comments or acted in a way he/she
ordinarily would not.
Getting final agreement signed by EEOC and the parties. Reaching out to EEOC ADR if there’s issues that
come up. Some scheduling issues.
Getting the private agreement signed. Sometimes there are distractions in the background of CP and
Respondent locations.
I've had to wait days/weeks to get back the signed MSA.
Being able to socialize with a group of co-workers/friends.
Different interactions, no brief encounters in the halls
I do miss the human interaction, but that is it.
A disadvantage is that some charging parties have difficulty with the technology, especially unrepresented
charging parties. Mediations have worked best in this circumstance with an audio dial in line, ensuring they
do not have to try to have video if they do not have the technology for that. Sometimes I think there is screen
fatigue also. Sometimes I miss being able to pop out in the hallway with an attorney to speak privately,
although I utilize a 3rd breakout room for this sometimes.
All parties having equal access to the technology for video mediation (e.g., fast internet)
claimant's sometimes have difficulty with their devices and/or internet access;
more difficult to make an interpersonal connection over video
If either party has a poor internet connection, it is frustrating when someone is continually dropped or their
screen is frozen. I did have a mediation where the offer amount that I heard was not the amount the
Respondent claims to have communicated. The Respondent blamed it on Zoom and not being able to hear
clearly (the case did settle).
If people gather in a large conference room to share one video screen, it is more difficult to arrange for
people to see me, and me to see them. I work in advance with parties to resolve this.
Internet connection
More of a challenge than a disadvantages: Making sure the parties are familiar with zoom. Most are but
some are a little challenged by it. I try to talk to the parties ahead of time and make sure they are
comfortable with the technology. If they are not, I will spend some time working with them on it.
Occasional internet connectivity problems. Stakeholders who are unfamiliar with technology.
Once in a while, inclement weather has knocked out internet service, causing delay. Sometimes, parties' lack
of technical expertise can cause disruption.
Other than buffering or sound quality, none. And the buffering is infrequent.
outdated laptops, unrealistic and unfair goals that are not listed in your performance evaluation
Some parties need more help with the technology (and all parties are not always tolerant when other parties
have technology failures).
Some plaintiffs may not have access to video capability and have to log on via phone or just choose not to
appear by video.
Sometimes the video is not clear but it is not a halt as Teams offers a phone dial in as well so it removes that
disadvantage. I have not had to have a translator but acknowledge that it could be a disadvantage.
Spectrum went out on me for about 10 minutes in a non EEOC mediation. Other parties have experienced
temporary loss of service and other technical difficulties. I have had to give my personal cell phone number
to counsel and they have exchanged their numbers so that if zoom went out we could communicate.
technical issues sometimes
The only disadvantage is when the system goes down
The only disadvantage I've experienced is that sometimes the parties internet connection is slow which lags
on video/audio.
The systems are always subject to not working as they should.
When a party is not familiar with the technology beside mediating you also need to provide tech support for
them.
When I first started doing Video mediation I kept getting disconnected from Zoom. That problem has been
resolved. I have also had to walk some people through the Zoom process before the mediation .
Wifi connection wavers at times
It's hard to end the day. We now live at work. It was easier to leave when I had to catch a specific train or
the lights went out at work.
Not as effective with the parties and counsel
Only disadvantage was distraction of charging party as she was going to the doctor while doing mediation
Possibility of unknown off-screen persons involved

Loss of discomfort/inconvenience that can motivate a party to resolve or feel the additional discomfort that
lies ahead if not resolved
Occasionally more difficult to have an impromptu candid "hallway" chat with representatives outside of
client presence
Sometimes the Charging Party doesn't seem to understand the fullness of what is going on.
The COVID fatigue is real.
Video mediation will never have the same quality as in-person mediation
Table 45. Advantages of Using Video Mediation – Verbatim Responses

(Question 63: In the space below list the advantages that you have experienced using video mediation.)
Less stress and irritation from all participants. More focused, more willing to participate when you are not
coming from the Airport to a 5 hour mediation, or driving on the highway, or taking public transportation, or
paying for expensive parking, etc., etc. No one is calling me telling me they are stuck in traffic and everyone
else seating around waiting, very common. Mediation cancelations are way down, way down, hardly anyone
cancels scheduled mediations anymore my calendar is already booked into November now, 5 months ahead,
so many Respondents wanting to mediate. More parties want to mediate now. Employer's not raising
objections about expenses of traveling to mediations anymore, can put some of those funds into settlements.
Easier to caucus. I've experienced very bad situations were parties have heard conversations in caucus
rooms when we did in person mediations because they were walking down the hallway or because rooms
were so close to each other, or relatives in the ADR lobby listening to Respondent side conversations and
telling CP, etc., etc., these were common problems, not anymore! Mediators who were all stressed traveling
all over the place and affecting their ability to mediate, not a problem anymore to say nothing of how cost
effective this is now for our Agency and for Taxpayers. Now we can hire more mediators instead! I could go
on and on about the benefits, for everyone, with this new technology that the Agency was so reluctant to use
in the past because it would not work and it has worked so well and surpassed our expectations. Not one
participant has complained to me about Zoom mediations, not one, on the contrary, people appreciate it.
Overall, I am surprised at how well video mediations can work. Communication is critical. I haven't
changed my mediation style in any appreciable way using video. I am actually mediating more often than I
did pre-pandemic because more employers are agreeing to mediate because it's convenient and saves time
and money otherwise spent traveling to an in-person mediation. I can also mediate cases from my district
office via video and that wasn't an option before.
Parties are more respectful of time constraints utilized to reach a resolution rather than display posturing
conduct in person. Break out rooms not directly close to each other and the parties may also have the
capability to do other things (if necessary ). Mediations are held and resolved quicker sometimes than in
person. Parties and representatives are more available because no travelling is required.
Video mediation creates a climate conducive to negotiation and resolution in part because it eliminates the
stressors that accompany scheduling and traveling to an in person mediation, the stress of going through
security and of meeting an antagonistic opponent in an unfamiliar space. The mediator can better control
the pace and temperature of the conversation by moving parties between break out rooms as needed, and by
sharing information and charts. An online mediation has the credible aura of neutrality, and offers access
to research and sharing tools that may not be available in a physical space. Online mediation helps the
parties to reduce their arguments to facts and numbers more quickly than they would in person, where often
people spend more time posturing than they do communicating. When people are physically in a room, they
spend time using body language to intimidate or pacify one another - it distracts from the progress of
reaching an outcome and sometimes short circuits resolution. In an online forum, they have less ability to
try to intimidate antagonize or otherwise manipulate the opponent through body language or other physical
conduct.
Faster transitions between private caucuses. Greater ease of pulling both counsel into caucus with counsel
only. Charging Parties seem less apprehensive.
Charging Parties are more relaxed inside a Breakout room versus when Respondent (current or former boss)
is in a room next door and potential for awkward hallway encounter exists. Also, the potential for perceived
power imbalance is minimized.
Charging Party seems more comfortable sometimes within their home or personal space. It also seems easier
not to have either party having to travel for mediation reducing travel expenses, parking expenses, time off
work for Charging Party, etc. Attorneys seem more civil and like there is less grand standing in the joint
session. Parties seem generally more satisfied from what they have conveyed to me with remote mediation.
Convenient and more relaxing
Eliminates travel; facilitates scheduling for all; and the parties are more comfortable in their own space.
The parties adore it. Charging parties are more comfortable. Attorneys are happier that they don't have to
sit with client every minute of the day. In NYC, everyone prefers not having to commute. The entire process
results in very satisfied parties.
The parties, especially the Charging Party are more comfortable with being in their own environment vs
coming to an office/conference room. Plus the parties have less anxiety about driving to the EEOC office,
finding parking, figuring out where to eat, etc. It allows them to be more focused on the mediation itself and
not distracted by these other infrastructure issues. The parties also seem to be, in general, more calm in the
sessions and less emotional vs being in the same room or just on the same floor as the other party.
It is easy, no one has to commute and no one is usually late for Mediation.
No commute to the mediation
No commute, saving money on gas, tolls, parking buying lunch etc... which is less stressful
No traffic or travel stressors, more relaxed participants and ease of reconvening if necessary to continue
negotiating.
No traffic, no metro, no late night taxi or ride sharing woes, home for dinner or even lunch, no need for extra
clothes cleaning
No travel time, easier to prepare for, more time to work with parties before/after mediation if necessary, less
formal/more relaxed, more convenient for both parties as well
No travel time; convenient to do in home
No travel to the EEOC office in the City - good for parties and mediator - especially when bad weather
No travel.
People don't have to travel to the mediation and are well rested. Participants are able to take a break in the
comfort of their own homes. If I am caucusing with one party, the other can be using that timely wisely since
they are home.
Respondent's representatives don't have to travel, which makes them sometimes more amenable to
settlement.
Safer during pandemic and many unvaccinated people! Parties and mediator gain time otherwise spent on
travel to mediation. Far fewer negative external factors that can upset process. Real scenarios: bad weather
(attorney shows up in soaked suit with collapsed umbrella), parking bad (machine won't work and party
knows they are getting ticketed while mediating, or checking a meter, etc.), flight delays, temptation to move
a flight up or beat traffic when the mediation is not going well but still making progress, the list goes
on...Parties and lawyers often dress more casually, which helps informalize the process and appearance of
openness. Far fewer accommodation issues (parking/mobility, lack of food/drink, dietary restrictions,
bathroom issues, able to easily step away (smoke breaks, bad back/can't remain seated, illness, temperature
issues) parties control their own environment! I am able to accommodate my own hearing impairment using
headset and volume which increases communication quality. No uncomfortable/problematic run-ins between
parties (bathroom, elevator, parking lot). Company is often willing to pay a bit more due to cost savings of
travel and additional attorney fees. No metal detectors / No physical security concerns. No entering
cramped room with poor ventilation where several people have been sitting all day with the door closed...
The parties are so much happier. It is not easy to navigate a big city and a federal building. This is great
for people with medical conditions and/or financial limits. I've had such an increase in authority people
actually attending the session. There's no drama with lack of restrooms, food, water, air conditioning, etc.
I'm also mediating cases all throughout my district instead of just focusing on my own office.
There have been almost no late starts as people are not commuting, traveling or struggling to find parking
near the federal building. The money that the employer saves by avoiding travel and related expenses, may
have a positive impact on resolutions (successes and settlement amounts) over time. I am able to offer
flexibility as to end times and remain focused throughout sessions, as I am not concerned about missing my
bus. There is more privacy using digital breakout rooms, compared to the parties sitting in rooms where they
may be overheard. There is also no concern about the firewall, compared to when enforcement and
mediation staff are working in rooms next to, or near one another. Zoom Gov is an excellent platform for
conducting professional mediations.
Video mediations are more convenient for all parties to attend because travel is not required and persons
can attend from wherever they are. People do not get each other sick (I am not just talking about COVID).
Because of the culture of working sick in the US, I have become ill frequently while working in mediation
and this has greatly improved since conducting mediations over Zoom. Parties are much more patient while
waiting in their own home or office and this facilitates smoother settlement negotiations. Charging parties
are much less fearful attending because they do not have to physically engaged with alleged harassers,
managers with whom they are in conflict etc. Participants have more time flexibility because they can
handle personal responsibilities and perform other work on breaks while attending video mediations.
Video mediations have been easy on the parties, they no longer have to travel or spend money on lodging to
be here. In the past charging parties (coming from rural areas) complained of having to drive hours to the
office and would stay overnight locally because they were unfamiliar with the downtown area.
It is less time consuming, more convenient, and very efficient.
It is more convenient for almost everyone. It is easier to schedule. Insurance adjusters participate in person
and are not just available by phone. It is easier to schedule mediations with parties and representatives who
are out of town. Breaks don't last as long because people can grab a bite to eat, for example, when I am
meeting with the other side and don't have to go anywhere to get food.
It's more efficient and convenient
Cost effective for all parties; quicker mediations being scheduled; safety
Cost effective, saves time, flexible and equally productive
Easier to convince parties to participate because travel costs were removed
Parties have easy access, they can break/reconvene easily, share documents (they often have access to
additional documents and files they may need for the mediation).
ease of use, comfort on the part of participants - particularly Charging Parties that are pro se, facilitation of
persons in different locations to participate more economically (time, money, travel)
People seem to be more relaxed and communicate more, some seem more engaged from start till the day
wears on, and again convivence, and use of the technology builds confidence in the integrative process.
Flexibility of schedule of the participants, being in a comfortable surrounding, less intimidating
Flexibility, parties are more relaxed and less confrontational, parties are willing to start earlier and seem to
move toward resolution quickly. I schedule for 3.5 hours which causes the parties to be more focused. I have
held a few that were over 4 hours but they resolved because of the initial short time scheduled. Parties are
able to have their lunch/snack and do not have to leave the facility which would sometimes cause a break in
the flow of communication when mediation was in-person.
More flexibility with time and more punctuality.

Parties are more flexible with scheduling, they can participate while sick or with kids at home, and there is
more flexibility with who is invited to the mediation on Respondent's side.
We can mediate in bad weather and mediate later if needed. No transportation issues. It's easier to schedule
video mediations. We get to see pets and children and it creates a bond. You get to know people better and
they can be more relaxed and comfortable.
Ability to engage parties in a more focused setting.
Ability to humanize all parties and provide ice breaking topics with video backgrounds and just life around
our homes. R's and CP's agree much more to participate in Mediation because it is less expensive for
everyone to travel to the EEOC Office. This is especially true for R's because their attorneys are not always
local and travel expenses are at a minimum $1000.00 for each of R's participants due to travel, per diem,
hotels, etc. R's do not want to make that expense just to settle for nuisance value or to add it to the overall
cost of a settlement. CP's are less intimidated by video and are more willing to participate in mediation.
Also, they do not want to face R's officials most of the time due to the conflict that gave them the courage to
file the charge, therefore, video or telephone mediations makes everyone feel more comfortable and allows
the parties to truly focus on a resolution for the charge.
Key advantage is maintaining involvement of out of town parties that would otherwise need to leave early for
flights, traveling, etc.
More of respondents decision makers attended.
Easy for everyone to attend
I have far more participants in the mediation program via video than ever.
There is no travel problems for the participants. They can mediate from the comfort of their home/office.
During these times, I feel more comfortable working via video. I'm not concerned about getting sick.
Mostly, the advantages have to do with time, efficiency and increased productivity. I am able to get more
accomplished while still providing excellent customer service to the parties.
Video mediation is more efficient than in person mediation. Video is a cool medium, which reduces negative
feelings the parties may have about each other.
Ease of scheduling, humanizing COVID and the challenges everyone faces, meeting attorneys face-to-face in
pre-hearing conferences and establishing a greater relationship prior to the mediation
Easier to schedule, easier to get party, including insurance company, participation. Less distractions.
Parties have better access to information when having the mediation from their workspace. I think it’s easier
for the parties during caucuses because they can be working on something else during the downtime. Overall
I haven’t found it made success less likely.
easier to schedule, somewhat more likely to involve out of state decision makers.
Effective and more convenient. Parties like it and it can be easier to schedule. Have necessary parties
participate from across the country as travel is not required. Parties more likely to show up and participate
as not such an investment to go downtown. This is a less scary alternative and it works!
I think it can help with scheduling.
Scheduling
Scheduling and convenience primarily.
Scheduling for all parties, efficiency, lack of travel.

Finding office space for mediation is very difficult and the travel time is exhausting.
I [am] able to get cases to the table more quickly. I am able to get important individuals to the success of the
mediation at the table. Because Attorneys do not have to travel I feel my financial settlements are larger.
Better outcomes, less stressful and time consuming scheduling process, happier parties, easier transmission
of settlement and other documents, enhanced communication, better logistically with regard to no worries
about office space restrictions, etc.
Efficient use of time
Less time constraints/obligations to be finish at a certain time due to the need to be physically somewhere
else after the conclusion of the mediation.
Easier access to documents and requested information. Parties are at their computers and therefore, have
the immediate ability to look at relevant emails/documents. This is very helpful.
Less time, more communication, SAFER, the choice for the parties and staff
Parties and attorneys save time and money in not having to travel for in person mediation.
Saves more time, more privacy, more efficient, parties feel more comfortable, and more cost efficient for all
parties.
Saves time.
Saving time/energy/resources. Easier to schedule.
Time efficiency for all involved.
Time, logistically more accessible, ability to have both joint and separate caucuses more quickly
Video mediations are more time efficient, greater privacy for parties, parties are more comfortable, and it is
more cost efficient for all participants.
easier, quicker
Just as effective as in person mediation
Many advantages, I get more done, I am saving the government money by conducting all mediations via
zoom from home. I feel more productive working from home.
Parties seem to be more eager to start and communicate. The condescending attitudes of parties is still
present but does not seem to persist as long r require much request for behavior modification as mediator.
The advantages of video mediations is the safety aspect with respect to the Charging Party and
confidentiality regarding the break out rooms.
The attorneys tend to get to the numbers more quickly.
Timeliness. Pace
Table 46. Video Mediation Factors that Impact Mediation – Verbatim Responses
(Question 64: In the space below list any other video mediation factors that impact mediation.)
Especially during COVID and key to mediation is flexibility. There can be reasons that people don't want to
appear on camera. Sometimes you need to work through that and understand. Sometimes it is tech related
sometimes it is fear sometimes embarrassment about surroundings. Sometimes they will do in caucus and not
joint session and vice versa. Key is to just keep working with parties to understand their needs and create
processes that work for all that in some instances may be a hybrid (audio, video and combo). As long as
everyone agrees to the process and sometimes I've had to mediate those issues (just as I sometimes did in in
person sessions--the warmup mediation about dates, logistics, attendees etc. some like to argue over
everything). I've never found the "medium" audio, video, in-person to be a hindrance to getting to a
resolution.
Video and more specifically, online/e-negotiation seems to be the natural line of evolution for mediation
because of ubiquitous nature of technology. People have come to expect the convenience of internet access
to services. People want self service options. Video/online mediation can satisfy this desire for convenience
in dispute resolution in a way that makes in person mediation irrelevant. If the parties want to settle a
charge they will do it whether they are in person on in a video mediation. Giving disputants an easier way to
settle a charge, by making negotiation tools available to them online, improves the likelihood that they will
do so.
The parties are able to be assigned to private break out rooms which has allowed Respondents who are out
of the country to participate in mediation, this has been tremendously helpful in resolution. Respondents
have openly acknowledged that their cost decreased in participating in mediation because it is virtual (video)
and they can speak directly with the client as opposed to phoning them and unable to reach them during
pertinent times in the mediation. Charging Parties have been more relaxed and have been more willing to
have discussion and not feel intimidated by in person mediation (this has been stated to me multiple times)
Makes it even easier to go to mediation in bad faith
I believe all parties during mediation feel for safe and relaxed which will produce a better outcome.
Parties are more relaxed; breakout room caucuses with just the attorneys induces collaboration.
Settlement agreements are more readily available for the parties to execute and return immediately.
Charging Party without legal representation are more comfortable in presenting by video than in person.
Respondent more likely to have settlement authority than to attend mediation in person to gather
information. Avoid intimidation tactics.
Getting email information for all parties and participants and sending confidentiality and agreement to
mediate to parties.
The willingness of parties to stay and work toward solutions - no flights to catch or other diversions.
The Document sharing feature is extremely valuable.
As the mediator, I am more at ease in my location than I would be in an office not my own. I am able to read
the on camera participants better than surveying a conference table where people are not facing me. I think
that is true for all participants.
Sometimes an attorney will announce that he or she needs to take a kid to soccer practice. This is pandemic-
related care-giving responsibility. The video process still works. We resume the mediation in the car at
soccer practice, or after they get back. This works. It is flexible. But it is not optimal.
All the factors I can’t think of impacts Zoom mediations positively, all of them. From more participation, to
less stress, to less irritation among parties, to better caucus sessions which are truly private, to now reaching
a larger scope of participants to way many less mediation cancelations to 100% better punctuality to cost
effectiveness for everyone, etc. to better resolutions.
I have seen less interrupting and cross-talk during video mediations as compared to in-person mediations.
Lack of assurance of confidentiality .....clearly causes the respondents to decline to meaningfully participate
in the opening session (9 out of 10 cases), be more guarded in their discussions with the mediator and less
forthcoming with problem solving suggestions
Easier to schedule
it is easier to schedule cases, especially involving parties from different states.
Ensuring that you have access to 2 screens can be very helpful - a screen to conduct the mediation, and a
screen for reviewing documents and taking notes during the mediation.
I have a hard wire that I use to better the signal.
If TEAMS or ZOOM goes down.
Internet connection, video protocols for participation.
It is always good for the mediator to exchange cell phone numbers with the parties in case there are any
issues with the video connection.
Poor connectivity - both respondent and CP
Technical issues arise at times that make it challenging.
The ability to turn the screen off is so helpful for people who need a moment to collect their
thoughts/emotions.
The only problems I have encountered have been technological; e.g., when the power goes out, internet
connection is lost, etc.
Whether a charging party has a computer rather than just a cell phone.
So far so good - working effectively
You can participate anywhere if need be.

Table 47. Comments/Suggestions that Mediators Believe Would Enhance EEOC’s Video Mediation –
Verbatim Responses
(Question 65: List and explain anything that you believe would enhance EEOC’s video mediation.)
EEOC could incorporate a blind bidding tool or other e-negotiation method guided by algorithm to settle
Charges without a mediation session. Only the most complex disputes could go to mediation. Other non
complex claims could be settled at the earliest stage of processing using negotiated settlement/bidding. This
could provide real relief to the most vulnerable low income Charging Parties who are often seeking a few
weeks or months of pay to tide them over until they can find a new job.
All of the participants appearing and not just by phone.
Zoom is best, with breakout rooms.
Continue offering remote video mediation post pandemic, with the ability to return to in-person mediation
when requested or necessary.
Let’s continue to use Zoom, its positive factors are so amazing and the technology is here, Ignoring it is
impossible and does great disservice to so many people at so many levels. I would like to have a background
screen with the Agency's Logo.
Use it more frequently, have it as an option for the parties if not required.
Better handling of closing documents. Respondent should come prepared with private settlement agreement.
Use technology for pre-convening videos of the EOC Mediation process. Online bidding may help as well.
wireless headphones
larger monitor
I think that the invite process could be more streamlined - currently sending a letter with a Zoom link. It
seems as if this could be sent via calendar invites. It also is difficult because as a pro bono mediator I don't
have access to the portal so I am always concerned and checking that the Agreement to Mediate and
Confidentiality Agreements have actually been completed prior to mediation.
Going forward, give parties the option for in-person or video mediation.
Allow a pre-mediation session with the mediator to elicit demands and response more quickly.
EEOC staff should send all the required premeditation documents to each party and have them return to
EEOC.
Encouraging pre-mediation discussion - beginning of negotiation - between the parties when both are
represented by counsel.
Ability to allow parties to docusign or other way to sign the documents electronically.
Additional instructions or options on how to handle signatures on documents. Should we use electronic
signatures using the PDF format or have the parties sign/scan/email document back? Sometimes this can be
a challenge for the parties.
E-Signatures or DocuSign
The ability to electronically fax and receive faxed documents from participants.
It would greatly improve EEOC's video mediation program if it was easier for parties and representatives to
sign our mediation agreements in our electronic portal. It would also help if parties and representatives
received automatic reminders to sign these forms at least twice prior to the mediation date. It would also
help if the agency provided more flexibility in our hours of work so that we could further accommodate
parties' schedules.
People love it. The only enhancement would be getting e-signatures through DocuSign and making sure the
pre mediations forms are available to all parties on the Portal.
using Docusign to make easier for the parties to sign their settlement agreements.
Using DocuSIgn to make it easier for parties to sign documents.
Agreement transmission technology
Better internet access with parties in more remote areas. This can be a problem - I don't believe this can be
resolved by EEOC.
Better more enhanced technology
I am doing mediation from my home office and have great technology. I can't speak to what the Agency can
provide better.
I think if the EEOC could offer tech support to CP and Respondents would help the process.
More training on INNOVATIVVE techniques. I know how to use the basic zoom features.
Provide a cell phone with internet sharing capability to all Mediators to have as a tool in case our own
internet is down. Frankly, the EEOC should be paying our home internet or compensating us at least $50 per
month because that is out of our pocket.
providing staff with the necessary tools, equipment and supplies.
Step by step instructions for parties to execute the pre-mediation agreements (Agreement to Mediate &
Confidentiality Agreement) on the portal. Maybe a "How To Video" link on the eeoc website explaining eeoc
video mediations and how they are conducted (how to prepare/what to expect).
Video Guidelines (Explicit)...
Zoom tips that could be distributed in advance to parties and their representatives.
Training Training Training
Making sure there is flexibility to address the needs of the parties as stated above. A one size fits all is the
antithesis of what mediation is all about.
Use it as a last resort.
Automatic participant polling would provide a lot of data for evaluation purposes that could easily be
obtained, transmitted and collated.
Table 48. Questions/Issues Not Addressed by the Survey - Verbatim Responses
(Question: Is there a question or issue that you believe this survey should have asked or addressed but did
not?)
The nature of confidentiality in mediation is a concern. In person we can see if someone is recording in spite
of our stating that recording is not allowed. However, I have been trained to assume that the person is
recording in spite of the rules.
Asking questions directly related to what we are asked to do in our position description verses what
management asks us to do that is not a part of our position description. There are times we are threatened
with bad reviews although we are performing our jobs based upon the description. Our managers are
stressful and pressure employees although things happen that are beyond our control. We can't force people
to participate in mediation, we can't stop customers from canceling or rescheduling, we can't stop charging
parties from deciding to get counsel after their conference is scheduled and now it has to be rescheduled, we
can't make respondents decide to mediate in one day- most ask for a few days to review the charge, talk to
their attorney and make an informed decision before accepting the mediation invitation, we can't have
conferences all day everyday twice a day- we are not robots, we are human beings that function much better
when we are well rested, and not trying to mediate under exhaustion. Our leadership is not concerned about
our mental health at all and it's becoming ridiculous. We are here to service the public and eradicate
discrimination. We are not here to just process cases like people are cattle and compete with our coworkers,
we are supposed to find violations of the law and be visible within the communities we work in so that people
feel comfortable coming to the Commission when they have a problem. Please ask management to treat their
employees better than they do now.
Hopefully, the EEOC will allow us to use more video mediations when we return to the office. Respondents
will be reluctant to travel after finding that they can conduct mediations over video and save time, money,
and other resources.
Impact of video mediations on job performance/work. Our productivity has soared since conducting video
mediations.
What is the impact on video mediations regarding job performance. On this note, my work performance has
improved drastically. In fact, since teleworking (using video) has enhanced my performance as I broke the
record at the [name] District Office for most successful resolutions and resolution rate, in the history of the
ADR Mediation Program.
Are contract mediators happy with their pay? I've been doing this for over 20 years and we are paid the
same amount of money. Everything else has increased in cost; mediation pay has not increased to match.
As a contract mediator being able to use video to mediate has been very helpful to me financially. Although I
love to travel the cost has gone up quite a bit and the contract price has not. I hate to say it, but that will be
a factor in the cases I can take. Thank you.
For contract mediators, the invoicing process can be very slow. PO show be on ipp site prior to mediation.
Video mediations are much easier and less costly to conduct. The EEOC only pays contract mediators $800
per mediation and before video mediations this generally required travel. This could result in little to no
income after expenses. I started mediating for the EEOC to gain experience as a new mediator, but I also
have a private practice where I charge $4,000 per mediation. At a certain point it would not make financial
sense to travel for the EEOC to conduct mediations. But I would continue doing video mediations because I
like to help the parties and EEOC resolve disputes.
A question on preference for Video versus in-person mediation.
Do mediators prefer video versus in-person mediations.

Do they parties prefer video over in-person mediation?
Do you prefer conducting Video Mediations versus Onsite Mediations?
My perception is that stakeholders are very pleased with video mediations. I wonder when the EEOC offices
re-open will stakeholders want to return to in-person mediations? I trust in-person mediations will be an
option for those who seek one but I can't imagine there will be many requests for in person. Since the
pandemic, I have had only request to hold an in person mediation and that request was only made by the
Charging Party who was unrepresented. Respondent was fine with a Video mediation.
What is the mediator's preferred method, in-person or virtual.
Whether the Contract Mediators would prefer to stay with Video mediations after the pandemic ends.
would prefer pre-mediation statements, very helpful
Ability to receive pre-mediation statements from both parties may enhance preparedness on both sides, as
well as alert the mediator to issues that are particularly important and that require especial attention.
Do you believe that pre-mediation outreach to the parties (from either the mediator or the EEOC) can build
momentum going into the mediation session? If so, what sort(s) of outreach do you suggest?
I think a form on the Zoom process should be sent to the cp and r when the charge is filed so they know what
to expect if the case is mediated.
It would be helpful if EEOC had a program that allowed us to create a term sheet that could be
electronically sent to the parties and easily signed by them electronically. I have been reading that an email
confirming agreement to a term sheet is not enforceable in many jurisdictions. Getting a signed term sheet
after a video mediation is currently difficult because many parties do not have their own ability
print/sign/scan a term sheet or a method of affixing an electronic signature. This creates difficulty/risk at the
end of our mediations.
Video (i.e.: zoom) has also made it more flexible to schedule the sessions. Ex: I had a mediation where the
attorney for the Respondent was in a different state from the Respondent. Using zoom made it really easy to
schedule everyone and the use of break out rooms made it easy for the Respondent and their attorney to work
with each other. Prior to the use of zoom, the Respondent and the attorney would have been required to
physically go to the EEOC office closest to them for the session. The use of zoom in this type of instance is
more efficient and practical. Thanks for asking.
Maybe develop a Q&A - add a few questions about what to expect and how to test their connectivity before
the day of mediation.
yes, should the EEOC be providing cell phone and internet to all mediators? the answer is yes
There seemed to be an assumption that video fatigue has to happen after 4 hours. I have had some really
lengthy in person mediations as well as on video (like 10+ hours) Thankfully they are rare. But it is the
parties who keep them going and want to get them done. So I would suggest assumptions not be made, and
there was no open ended option that I recall. Also I mentioned earlier but I think 2 sets of questions were
actually looking for top 3 helpful conduct of CP and Respondent but stated in negative so that was confusing.
The survey also didn't address any hybrid between audio and video. When we did in person sometimes folks
had to participate by phone and that worked. It is rare that the audio only now happens but still I find having
someone show up audio only is better than not showing up at all. And it can be necessary if there is a tech
snafu. Yes, way harder to mediate and takes more skill but it still works. I maintain you can still hear a smile
and the opposite. I also have found that the medium phone/video/in person has never been the reason
something doesn't resolve.
I believe that the survey should have inquired from the mediators (those on the front lines) what percentage
of parties have directly or indirectly communicated with the mediator that they prefer in person mediation
over video mediations. In my personal experience, I have never had any party complain about video
mediations nor have they ever indicated that they prefer in person. Quite the contrary... I have had both CP
and R or R attorneys comment regarding the efficiency and convenience that video mediation has provided
to them.
I don't think, given some of the questions and the structure of the questions, that this survey is really asking
questions in a way that we can better assess and relate to decision makers how amazingly effective Zoom
mediations are. I was completely intimated and scared with them at the beginning and I am blown away not
only how comfortable I have become with Zoom mediations but I am taken aback how comfortable all
participants are with them; attorneys, Respondents, CPs, people are very confirmable with this technology
and I actually find them to act in a more civil, more professional and less aggressive manner that when they
participated in person for so many reasons.
Please provide feedback to the Respondents and Charging Party about the process prior to assigning the
case to ADR.
Sometimes Mediation continues for a couple of days and therefore the time can be a factor
Why doesn’t EEOC obtain more funding for such a successful voluntary resolution program?

FF 05 de 82

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FF 05 de 82

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Employment Dispute Resolution

Revolution - Online Dispute

© 2019 American Bar Association. All rights reserved.

This publication accompanies the audio program entitled “Employment Dispute

2. After 20 Years, Mediation is Mainstream at the EEOC

ABA Dispute Resolution Section

Houston National ADR

Stephanie E. Patrick McDermott,

Philadelphia Salisbury University, MD

 The Impact of the Pandemic

 The Mediation Surveys:

 Sowing the Seeds for our

 Neutral, Confidential, Enforceable

 If no mediation, then EEOC investigation

 EEOC can issue notice of Reasonable Cause

 Regardless of EEOC decision you get a Right

 Accomplished in half the time of average

2000 - Participant Evaluation (McDermott, et. al.)

2001 - Mediator Perceptions of Process

2003 - Reasons Employers Decline EEOC Mediation

2018/19 - Paper form provided to parties in person

Identified issues to measure

10 months of survey development

Pre-test with Supervisory ADR in all EEOC Offices

Surveys – Mediator Summer of 2021 – Participant Fall of 2021

Similar questions as 2001 surveys

Additional ODR focused questions

 EEOC STAFF MEDIATORS

 Procedural Justice Measures Viewed as

 Distributive Justice Measures ODR as Fair

 Non-Pandemic Factors – Location,

 ODR Comparisons - more/less/similarly

Resolution Allegations of Access to

Less Stress than In Person Mediation

Online Access is NOT as Great of a

Check EEOC’s Website

 The Hybrid Approach

 Cases for Online

The future is not

6 DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE | SUMMER 2018

SUMMER 2018 | DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE 7

8 DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE | SUMMER 2018

SUMMER 2018 | DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE 9

10 DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE | SUMMER 2018

E. Patrick McDermott, Ph.D., is Professor of Management and Legal Studies

SUMMER 2018 | DISPUTE RESOLUTION MAGAZINE 11

Consented – full survey 1197 50%

Actual number of surveys included in the analysis b 1234

Table 2. Survey Participation, by Party

Charging Party 225 18%

Yes 258 21%

Table 4. Presence of Insurance Adjuster

Attorney 590 83.2%

Primarily/mainly by video call:

Cell phone 320 28% 173 41% 147 20%

Cell phone 102 9% 73 18% 29 4%

Charging Party Respondent and

Strongly Disagree 126 11% 55 13% 71 9%

Mean Rating * 4.1692 4.0486 4.2387

Charging Party Respondent and

Charging Party Respondent and

No, I did not engage in other

I contacted others (friends,