EEOC Mediation: Five Things to Consider Before Participating
A former employee files a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against their prior employer alleging that they were unlawfully terminated as a result of discrimination. The parties may be advised that they have the ability to participate in the EEOC's mediation program. When your client asks if they should participate, what should you say?
October 23, 2023 at 10:26 AM
8 minute read
Special SectionsA former employee files a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against their prior employer alleging that they were unlawfully terminated as a result of discrimination. The parties may be advised that they have the ability to participate in the EEOC's mediation program. When your client asks if they should participate, what should you say? Here are five things to discuss with your client so that they can make an informed decision about whether or not to participate.
|- They should be advised that the process is completely voluntary. If they elect mediation, the mediation process pauses any investigation, production of documents and avoids costly expenses.
If either side should decline mediation, then the charge would be sent to the enforcement unit for investigation. What does that typically mean? It means that the employer would be asked to submit a position statement in response to the charge and, thereafter, may be asked for documentation. The investigator then sends the position statement and documents to the employee to review and respond. The investigator typically does not conduct interviews, but instead relies on the documents submitted by each side. If the employee does not request a right to sue letter after the EEOC has had at least 180 days to investigate, the investigation process typically lasts for 10 months to a year. However, your client should be warned that the process usually takes longer than a year.
|- They should be notified that the mediation process is free.
The EEOC assigns the mediation to either a mediator on staff or a pro bono mediator. This means that it will not cost your client any money to participate in the mediation. Compare this to what it may cost your client should the action continue to federal court where the parties will be mandated to participate in some form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and private mediators tend to charge between $3,500 to $6,000 for their services.
|- They should be made aware that the mediation is conducted via an electronic platform.
A link is sent to the parties, so your client can conveniently participate from the comfort of their own home or office. This is helpful, as mediations can take hours and it can give them the flexibility of tending to other needs during breaks. It also might make them more comfortable during the process, as they are not required to travel and are in a familiar place. Your client should be told that while the mediation process can be lengthy, it is not nearly as time consuming as the time it would take to prosecute or defend a lawsuit.
|- They should be counseled that the mediation process is confidential.
The mediator is tasked with acting as a neutral to determine whether the parties can amicably resolve the charge. The parties are required to sign a confidentiality agreement. Regardless of what occurs at the mediation, the mediator is not permitted to advise the investigator of what was discussed—only that the charge resolved or did not resolve. As such, the parties are able to speak freely and nothing said during the mediation can be used against them if the charge is not resolved. Further, the mediation process can shed light on your client's strengths and weaknesses and allow it to determine how best to proceed.
|- If your client chooses to participate in the mediation process, you should recommend that your client attend.
After all, this is their case and they should want to hear what the other side has to say in order to determine how to proceed. While the EEOC suggests that all parties attend the mediation session, sometimes employers will send counsel in their stead. Whereas if the matter proceeds to federal court, the parties are required to attend an ADR session. Again, it is more important for the parties to be present to learn what the other side is going to say if this matter were to continue.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCivil RICO's Expanding Reach: From Foreign Schemes to Lost Employment
7 minute readAct 135 Conservator Appointment for Vacant Property Upheld by Superior Court
7 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 3Guarantees Are Back, Whether Law Firms Want to Talk About Them or Not
- 4How I Made Practice Group Chair: 'If You Love What You Do and Put the Time and Effort Into It, You Will Excel,' Says Lisa Saul of Forde & O'Meara
- 5Abbott, Mead Johnson Win Defense Verdict Over Preemie Infant Formula
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250