The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

VI. Results

The results reflect the responses provided by charging parties and respondents who were involved in the EEOC mediations from March 1 to July 31, 2000. There were 1,683 completed surveys from the charging parties and 1,572 completed surveys from the respondents. These numbers include only properly-completed questionnaires. As discussed earlier, in cases where the protocol and the instructions were not strictly followed, the questionnaires were excluded from the final sample.

The number of questionnaires received from the two participant groups represents a comprehensive survey of mediations conducted by the EEOC. The sample consists of responses from 24 of the 25 EEOC district offices (Appendix A.1). The sample size establishes this survey as the one of the largest comprehensive studies of mediation programs ever conducted.

A. Profile of the Sample

What are the characteristics of the sample? How representative is this sample when compared to the cases mediated by the EEOC? To answer these questions, we present a profile of our sample and a comparison of the profile of cases mediated by the EEOC during the March 1 - July 31 period. Information was gathered about the characteristics of the participants, the nature of their charges, and the characteristics of their mediation sessions. Regarding the participant characteristics, information was gathered about the respondents' number of employees. Regarding the nature of the participant charges, information was gathered about the statute, basis, and issue under which the cases were filed. Finally, information regarding the mediation sessions—the mediator type, the presence or use of a legal or non-legal representative, and the status of the mediation at the time the questionnaire was completed—was gathered and tabulated. Comparisons demonstrate that the profile of our sample closely resembles the profile of the EEOC database.

1. The Characteristic of the Participants: Company Size

Between March 1 and July 31, 2000, the EEOC mediated a total of 4,776 cases. The companies involved in these mediations were classified into four categories. Based on the EEOC data, 40.2% of the cases involved companies with 15 to 100 employees, 13.7% with 101 to 200 employees, 11.3% with 201 to 500 employees, and 32% with more than 500 employees. When we compare our sample to the above distribution, results show that the composition of participants is the same. The majority of the participants were employed in companies with 15 to 100 employees (40.7% of charging parties, 41.7% of respondents) and companies with more than 500 employees (30.2% and 30.3%, respectively). The rest of the participants were employed in companies with 101 to 200 employees (14.9%, 14.1%) and 201 to 500 employees (12%, 11.3%).

2. Nature of the Participant Charges

Information was also gathered regarding the nature of the participant charges. Each case is categorized based on the statute at issue (Title VII, ADEA, ADA), the basis of the charge (religion, gender, national origin, race, disability, and age), and the issue (discharge, terms and conditions of employment, harassment, sexual harassment, promotion, wages, discipline, and reasonable accommodation). It should be noted that some parties filed a charge under more than one statute, basis, or issue.

a. Statute

Title VII, ADEA, and ADA are the statutes at issue. Title VII is the statute that is applicable to the majority of charges. A review of the charges of the charging parties shows that there were 1,199 charges that pertained to Title VII, 360 to the ADEA, and 396 to the ADA. On the respondent side, 1,127 charges pertained to Title VII, 331 to the ADEA, and 379 to the ADA.

b. Basis

The bases of the majority of charges were race and gender, followed by disability, age, national origin, and religion. For the charging parties, the basis of 638 charges was race, 511 gender, 392 disability, 357 age, 149 national origin, and 42 religion. For the respondents, the basis of 593 charges was race, 482 gender, 374 disability, 327 age, 151 national origin, and 39 religion.

c. Issue

The issues were classified as discharge, terms and conditions of employment, harassment, sexual harassment, promotion, wages, discipline, and reasonable accommodation. As indicated in Table I, the majority of the charges were related to discharge and terms and conditions of employment.

Table I
Comparison of the Nature of the Charges Between Our Sample and the EEOC Database
  EEOC Mediation Cases (March 1 - July 31) Charging Parties Respondents
Title VII 73.8% 71.2% 71.7%
Age 19.2% 21.4% 21.1%
Disability 22.3% 23.5% 24.1%
Basis
Religion 2.4% 2.5% 2.5%
Gender 33.3% 30.4% 30.7%
National Origin 8.5% 8.9% 9.6%
Race 35.2% 37.9% 37.7%
Disability 23.1% 23.3% 23.8%
Age 19.3% 21.2% 20.8%
Issue
Discharge 46.0% 48.6% 49.6%
Terms and
Conditions
20.9% 19.0% 18.4%
Harassment 19.1% 17.1% 16.8%
Sexual Harassment 12.1% 10.4% 10.6%
Promotion 10.4% 10.1% 10.0%
Wages 9.1% 9.2% 8.7%
Discipline 8.9% 9.2% 9.0%
Reasonable
Accommodation
8.8% 8.6% 8.7%

The results show that there is a strong similarity between the EEOC's database and our sample with respect to statute, basis, and issue, as shown in the above table.

3. Characteristics of the Mediation Session

Information was gathered regarding the characteristics of the mediation session, such as mediator type, representation, and mediation status. Although there was comparable EEOC information regarding mediator type, there was no comparable information on the other two variables. Thus, no comparison is presented below.

a. Mediator Type

For both groups in our sample, the vast majority (78%) of cases were mediated by internal mediators, 21% were mediated by external mediators, and the rest were mediated by a combination of external and internal mediators. This profile closely resembles the EEOC's use of internal and external mediators during this period—74% of the total cases during this period were mediated by internal mediators, 25% by external mediators, and 1% by a combination of both.

b. Representation

There is a marked difference in the use of representation by the two parties. Respondents were more likely to have a representative going into the mediation. Only 41% of the charging parties were represented, whereas 58% of the respondents were represented. Fifty-eight percent of the charging parties and 40% of the respondents did not have representatives. One percent of the charging parties and two percent of the respondents did not furnish this information.

c. Mediation Status

For the majority of participants (74% of charging parties and 81% of the respondents), their mediation was completed at the time of the survey. Analysis reveals that 56% of the charging parties' and 61% of the respondents' charges have been resolved. The rest of the charging parties either responded that their cases are still ongoing (14%) or did not provide any information on the status (12%) of their mediation. Respondents were more cognizant of the status of their mediation—only 6% did not provide this information. The rest of the respondents (13%) replied that their sessions were ongoing.

In summary, the discussion above demonstrates the very strong similarity between the sample and population group with regard to the type of mediator used, the company size, the statute the cases were filed under, the basis of the charges, and the specific issue under consideration. These similarities demonstrate that the results of this study are generalizable to the population. There was only one area where differences occurred between the two databases. Differences occurred in terms of the geographic or district office distribution (Appendix A.1). Notwithstanding these differences, it is our opinion that this will not substantially affect or bias the results of this study. Statistical tests indicate that the responses of the participants are, by and large, independent of their geographic location.

B. Participant Feedback Regarding the Mediation

The survey questions regarding participant feedback of the mediation are comprised of two major areas of evaluation: procedural and distributive elements. Questions concerning procedural elements include statements about mediation preparation, comprehension of the process, voice (i.e., opportunity to present views), and the mediator's role and conduct.

Participant satisfaction with the distributive elements of mediation was measured using four questions concerning the results. More specifically, three questions were asked about participant attitudes regarding the realistic nature of the options developed during the mediation, their satisfaction with the fairness of mediation, and their satisfaction with the results. The fourth distributive question was a "yes/no" question concerning whether the participants obtained what they wanted from the mediation. With the exception of this question, all other distributive and procedural questions discussed above were measured using a Likert scale with a continuum of 1 to 5, 1 representing strong disagreement and 5 representing strong agreement.

1. Procedural Elements and Mediation

Four statements were used to measure the participants' satisfaction with the mediation process. Of these, the first two were "pre-mediation session" or "mediation preparation" statements regarding whether the participants received an adequate explanation from an EEOC representative and whether the session was scheduled promptly. The next two statements asked whether the participants understood the process and had an opportunity to present their views.

a. Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice

An analysis of the participant responses regarding their "pre-mediation" or mediation preparation experiences shows that the participants had a positive experience. Eighty-seven percent of the participants agreed with the statement that "prior to my attendance at this mediation session today, I received an adequate explanation about mediation from an EEOC representative." The mean score for the statement was 4.23. As indicated in Table II, data also show that both charging parties and respondents were in agreement regarding the statement. Eighty-eight percent of the charging parties agreed with the statement and 85% of the respondents agreed with the statement. The mean score for the charging parties was 4.24 and the respondents was 4.21, indicating that there is very little difference between the two groups regarding their attitudes on this issue.

Eighty-nine percent of the participants agreed with the statement that "the mediation was scheduled promptly." The mean score was 4.34, indicating that there was strong agreement about the prompt scheduling of mediation. Ninety-one percent of the respondents and 88% of the charging parties agreed with the statement. As shown in Chart A, the mean score was 4.39 for the respondent group and 4.28 for the charging party group. Analysis reveals that the difference in the mean scores is significant, indicating that the respondents were more satisfied than the charging parties with the prompt scheduling of mediation.

Participants also agreed with the statements regarding the mediation session. Ninety-four percent of the participants agreed with the statement that "after the mediator's introduction, I felt that I understood the mediation process." The mean score was 4.44, indicating that participants strongly agreed that they understood the process. A comparison of the two groups shows that 96% of the respondents and 92% of the charging parties agreed with the statement. Analysis reveals that the responses of the participant groups varied significantly and that the respondents (mean score of 4.53) agreed more strongly than the charging parties (mean score of 4.35) that they understood the process.

Participants also felt that they had a voice during the process. The vast majority of the participants agreed with the statement that "I (or my representative) had a full opportunity to present my views during the mediation process." Ninety-five percent of the respondents and 90% of the charging parties agreed with this statement, indicating that the opportunity to present one's views, one of the essential elements of procedural justice, was present in the EEOC mediation process. The average mean scores reveal that the respondents (4.57) felt more strongly than the charging parties (4.39) that they had an opportunity to present their views.

In summary, participant responses to this set of mediation process questions indicated strong satisfaction with this part of the mediation process for both charging parties and respondents. They rated the "pre-mediation" aspects of the process very highly. They also felt that they understood the mediation process and they or their representative had an opportunity to present their views during the session. Although both charging parties and respondents had similar attitudes regarding the mediation process, it should be noted that respondents agreed more strongly to statements concerning the prompt scheduling of mediation, understanding of mediation, and presentation of views. These findings are highlighted in Chart A and Table II. For a more detailed presentation of the data tabulations, refer to Appendix B.

Chart A: Participant Satisfaction with Procedural Elements of Mediation: Explanation, Scheduling and Voice (details in text)
Table II
Participant Satisfaction with the Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice*
Statements Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)
Respondents
Mean
(n, %)
Prior to my attendance at this mediation session today, I received an adequate explanation about mediation from an EEOC representative. 4.24
(1637, 88.3%)
4.21
(1516, 85.4%)
The mediation was scheduled promptly. 4.28
(1673, 87.7%)
4.39
(1559, 90.5%)
After the mediator's introduction, I felt that I understood the mediation process. 4.35
(1676, 91.6%)
4.53
(1561, 95.8%)
I (or my representative) had a full opportunity to present my views during the mediation process. 4.39
(1677, 89.8%)
4.57
(1563, 95.0%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

b. The Mediator

The second set of questions focused on statements regarding the mediator's performance. More specifically, participants were asked whether the mediator understood their needs, helped to clarify their needs, remained neutral in the beginning as well as throughout the process, helped to develop options for the resolution of their claim, and used procedures that were fair to them.

The majority of the participants felt that the mediator understood their needs (87%) and helped to clarify their needs (82%). Eighty-six percent of the 1,669 charging parties and 87% of the 1,552 respondents agreed that the mediator understood their needs. The mean scores of the charging parties (4.30) and the respondents (4.31) indicate that the parties' responses were identical with regard to the statement that "the mediator understood my needs." The participants also felt that "the mediator helped clarify my needs." Eighty-four percent of the charging parties and 79% of the respondents expressed either strong or very strong agreement with the above statement. Although the agreement was strong among participants in general, it was stronger among charging parties (mean of 4.25) than among respondents (mean of 4.17).

An overwhelming majority of the participants agreed with the statements regarding the neutrality of the mediator. Of the 1,674 charging parties who responded to the statement "at the beginning of the mediation, I considered the mediator to be neutral," 1,542 (92%) agreed with the statement. Similarly, 1,441 of the 1,566 respondents (92%) who answered indicated strong agreement with the statement. The mean scores of 4.44 for the charging parties and 4.49 for the respondents indicate the strength of the attitudes of participants. Participants also agreed that "the mediator remained neutral during the session." Ninety-one percent of the charging parties and 89% of the respondents agreed with the statement. An analysis of the mean scores of the participants (4.42 for the charging parties and 4.43 for the respondents) shows that the participant groups felt very strongly that the mediator remained neutral during the session.

Participants also felt that the mediator played a very useful role in the development of options for the resolution of the charge. Eighty-five percent of the charging parties and 84% of the respondents agreed with the statement that "the mediator helped the parties develop options for resolving the charge." The nearly identical mean scores of the participants (4.27 for the charging parties and 4.23 for the respondents) attest to the fact that the attitudes of both participant groups were very similar.

Participants agreed that the procedures used by the mediator were fair to them. Of the 1,668 charging parties who responded to the statement "the procedures used by the mediator in the mediation were fair to me," 1,476 (89%) expressed agreement with the fairness of the mediation procedures. Similarly, of the 1,564 respondents who answered, 1,436 (92%) expressed agreement. Analysis of the mean scores reveals that the respondents (4.44) agreed more strongly than the charging parties (4.33) regarding the fairness of the procedures used by the mediator.

Overall, as shown in Chart B and Table III, the participants were very satisfied with the role and conduct of the mediator. There were some differences between the two participant groups regarding their perceptions of mediators. A higher percentage of charging parties (84%) than respondents (79%) agreed that the mediator helped to clarify their needs. The reverse is the case regarding the participant attitudes concerning fairness of the procedures used by the mediator. Ninety-two percent of the respondents agreed with the statement, whereas 89% of the charging parties agreed.

As illustrated in this section on procedural elements, both the charging parties and respondents were very satisfied with the fairness of the process. The mean scores of both participant groups were over 4.00 on a 5-point scale, indicating their strong agreement with the process statements. Similarly, an analysis of the percentages reveals that the vast majority of participants (over 80% with one exception) either agreed or strongly agreed with the process statements. Thus, participants indicated a high level of satisfaction with the EEOC mediation process.

Participant Satisfaction with Procedural Elements of Mediation: Mediator (details in text)
Table III
Participant Satisfaction with the Mediator*
Statements Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)
Respondents
Mean
(n, %)
The mediator understood my needs. 4.30
(1669, 86.4%)
4.31
(1552, 86.9%)
The mediator helped clarify my needs. 4.25
(1665, 84.4%)
4.17
(1504, 79.3%)
At the beginning of the mediation, I considered the mediator to be neutral. 4.44
(1674, 92.1%)
4.49
(1566, 92.0%)
The mediator remained neutral throughout the session. 4.42
(1664, 90.7%)
4.43
(1564, 89.1%)
The mediator helped the parties develop options for resolving the charge. 4.27
(1661, 85.1%)
4.23
(1545, 83.9%)
The procedures used by the mediator in the mediation were fair to me. 4.33
(1668, 88.5%)
4.44
(1564, 91.8%)

* Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

2. Distributive Elements and Mediation

The third set of questions addressed the "bottom line" issues of participant satisfaction with the outcome of the mediation process. Three statements measured the distributive elements. The first was concerning the realistic nature of the solutions developed during the mediation, and the other two were regarding the participant satisfaction with the fairness of mediation and with the results of mediation.

The first statement concerning the mediation outcome was that "most of the options developed during the mediation session were realistic solutions to resolving the charge." The participants responded very similarly to this statement: 76% of the respondents and 75% of the charging parties expressed agreement with the statement. A larger percentage of participants (16% of respondents and 13% of charging parties) remained neutral regarding this statement as opposed to the other mediation process statements. The mean scores of 4.00 for the respondents and 3.95 for the charging parties indicate that they agreed upon the realistic nature of the options developed during the session and that there was very little difference in the views of the participant groups regarding this issue.

Eighty-seven percent of the respondents and 79% of the charging parties agreed with the statement that "I was satisfied with the fairness of the mediation session." An analysis of the mean scores of the two groups indicates that respondents agreed more strongly (4.31) with the statement than the charging parties (4.07).

While the vast majority of the participants (83%) were satisfied with the fairness of the mediation session, their satisfaction with the results (59%) of the mediation was more tempered. Of the 1,547 charging parties who responded to the statement "I was satisfied with the results of mediation," 55% agreed with the statement, whereas of the 1,477 respondents, 63% agreed. Thus, the respondents were more satisfied with the results of the mediation than the charging parties. The mean scores reveal that respondents agreed more strongly (mean of 3.67) than the charging parties (3.38) with the statement. Chart C and Table IV present these findings. This result should be interpreted with some caution since our sample includes participants from on-going mediations.

Participant Satisfaction with Distributive Elements of Mediation (Details in text)
Table IV
Participant Satisfaction with the Distributive Elements of Mediation*
Statements Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)
Respondents
Mean
(n, %)
Most of the options developed during the mediation session were realistic solutions to resolving the charge. 3.95
(1648, 75.2%)
4.00
(1519, 75.6%)
I was satisfied with the fairness of the mediation session. 4.07
(1648, 78.9%)
4.31
(1559, 86.9%)
I was satisfied with the results of the mediation. 3.38
(1547, 54.8%)
3.67
(1477, 62.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

The survey also sought to measure whether the participants obtained what they wanted from mediation. This is a strong distributive measure. The participants were asked whether they knew, before going into mediation, what they wanted from mediation. If they stated that they did, then they were also asked whether they obtained what they wanted.<120> Of the 79% of the charging parties who indicated that they knew what they wanted,<121> only 41% stated that they obtained what they wanted. Of the 83% of the respondents who knew what they wanted going into the mediation, 57% stated that they obtained what they wanted. Charts D and E depict these results.


Charging Parties Expectations Going Into Mediation (Details in text)

Respondents Expectation Going Into Mediation (details in text)


Another distributive justice question targeted those participants whose disputes did not get resolved during mediation. As indicated earlier, 26% of the charging parties and 19% of the respondents did not resolve their claims. They were asked whether progress was made in mediation toward the resolution of their claim. As shown in Table V, of the 488 charging parties who responded, 29% agreed that progress was made. Similarly, 28% of the 486 respondents agreed with the statement. The mean scores of 2.60 for the charging parties and 2.72 for the respondents indicate that the respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that progress was made in mediation.

Table V
Responses of Participants Whose Claims Were Not Resolved in Mediation Regarding Whether Progress was Made Toward Resolution
Participant
Group
Total
Responses
Mean Rating Strongly Disagree/ Disagree Neither Agree nor Disagree Agree/Strongly
Agree
Charging Parties 488 2.60 48.6% 22.1% 29.3%
Respondents 486 2.72 41.6% 30.9% 27.6%

In summary, the analysis of participant responses shows that the participants were satisfied with both procedural and distributive elements of mediation. The participants were more satisfied with the procedural elements than with the distributive elements. Regarding the procedural elements, participants expressed the highest degree of satisfaction with the neutrality of the mediator, the opportunity to present their views, and their understanding of the process. Concerning the distributive elements, participants were more satisfied with the fairness of mediation and with the realistic nature of the options developed during the mediation than they were with the results of mediation. These findings are summarized in Table VI.

Table VI
Participant Satisfaction with the Procedural and Distributive Elements of Mediation*
Statements Charging Parties
Mean
(n, %)
Respondents
Mean
(n, %)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Prior to my attendance at this mediation session today, I received an adequate explanation about mediation from an EEOC representative. 4.24
(1637, 88.3%)
4.21
(1516, 85.4%)
The mediation was scheduled promptly. 4.28
(1673, 87.7%)
4.39
(1559, 90.5%)
After the mediator's introduction, I felt that I understood the mediation process. 4.35
(1676, 91.6%)
4.53
(1561, 95.8%)
I (or my representative) had a full opportunity to present my views during the mediation process. 4.39
(1677, 89.8%)
4.57
(1563, 95.0%)
Mediator
The mediator understood my needs. 4.30
(1669, 86.4%)
4.31
(1552, 86.9%)
The mediator helped clarify my needs. 4.25
(1665, 84.4%)
4.17
(1504, 79.3%)
At the beginning of the mediation, I considered the mediator to be neutral. 4.44
(1674, 92.1%)
4.49
(1566, 92.0%)
The mediator remained neutral throughout the session. 4.42
(1664, 90.7%)
4.43
(1564, 89.1%)
The mediator helped the parties develop options for resolving the charge. 4.27
(1661, 85.1%)
4.23
(1545, 83.9%)
The procedures used by the mediator in the mediation were fair to me. 4.33
(1668, 88.5%)
4.44
(1564, 91.8%)
Distributive Elements
Most of the options developed during the mediation session were realistic solutions to resolving the charge. 3.95
(1648, 75.2%)
4.00
(1519, 75.6%)
I was satisfied with the fairness of the mediation session. 4.07
(1648, 78.9%)
4.31
(1559, 86.9%)
I was satisfied with the results of the mediation. 3.38
(1547, 54.8%)
3.67
(1477, 62.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.



C. The Influence of Other Variables on Participant Satisfaction

Were participants who had representation more satisfied with mediation than those who had none? Did the mediation status affect participant satisfaction with mediation? Did the company size matter? Did participant responses vary according to the statute, basis, or issue? We have analyzed participant responses based on the following eight variables: company size, mediation statute, basis of charge, issue, mediator type, representation, mediation status, and mediation result. We have presented summary tables of data tabulations in the appropriate subsections of this section. For detailed data tabulation tables, refer to Appendix B.

1. Participant Responses and Company Size

The participants of this research came from organizations of different sizes. We divided the participants into four groups based on the size of their companies and analyzed their responses to see if they varied according to company size. The first group comprised of participants from organizations that had 15 to 100 employees; the second group came from companies that had 101 to 200 employees; the third group from companies that had 201 to 500; and the last from organizations that had over 500 employees. Our analysis found only one significant difference based on company size. Among the charging parties, members of the fourth group (more than 500 employees) rated the statement regarding the development of realistic options significantly lower than the other groups. Among both participant groups, there were no other significant trends or patterns related to organization size. These results are presented in Tables VII and VIII.

Table VII
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Company Size*
Statements 15 to 100
(Group 1)
101-200
(Group II)
201 to 500
(Group III)
More than 500
(Group IV)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.25
(664, 89.0%)
4.22
(245, 87.3%)
4.27
(192, 88.5%)
4.22
(499, 87.2%)
Prompt scheduling 4.31
(664, 89.0%)
4.21
(251, 84.9%)
4.37
(200, 89.0%)
4.26
(504, 87.1%)
Understood the process 4.38
(684, 92.4%)
4.32
(250, 90.8%)
4.39
(199, 92.0%)
4.29
(507, 90.3%)
Opportunity to present views 4.40
(684, 90.2%)
4.34
(251, 88.0%)
4.36
(201, 88.1%)
4.39
(506, 90.5%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.33
(683, 87.0%)
4.25
(250, 85.6%)
4.36
(198, 88.4%)
4.25
(502, 85.1%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.28
(680, 85.4%)
4.20
(250, 82.4%)
4.30
(200, 85.0%)
4.24
(498, 84.1%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.46
(682, 92.2%)
4.43
(249, 93.2%)
4.48
(201, 92.0%)
4.40
(505, 91.5%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.43
(680, 91.0%)
4.43
(244, 91.0%)
4.43
(201, 89.1%)
4.39
(502, 91.0%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.32
(677, 85.8%)
4.26
(247, 85.4%)
4.27
(200, 86.0%)
4.20
(501, 83.4%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.36
(681, 89.3%)
4.29
(250, 88.4%)
4.34
(199, 87.9%)
4.30
(503, 87.5%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 4.03
(678, 77.6%)
3.95
(245, 74.3%)
4.04
(196, 77.0%)
3.83
(493, 71.6%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.11
(673, 80.7%)
4.08
(247, 77.7%)
4.04
(194, 76.3%)
4.04
(497, 78.5%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.45
(631, 56.7%)
3.33
(235, 54.0%)
3.42
(184, 54.9%)
3.30
(463, 52.3%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different groups.

Table VIII
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Company Size*
Statements 15 to 100
(Group 1)
101 to 200
(Group II)
201 to 500
(Group III)
More than 500
(Group IV)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, & Voice
Adequate explanation 4.17
(635, 84.1%)
4.20
(215, 85.6%)
4.30
(174, 89.1%)
4.25
(453, 86.3%)
Prompt scheduling 4.37
(652, 90.3%)
4.37
(222, 88.7%)
4.44
(177, 93.2%)
4.41
(471, 90.4%)
Understood the process 4.52
(652, 95.9%)
4.50
(221, 94.6%)
4.57
(177, 98.3%)
4.54
(472, 95.6%)
Opportunity to present views 4.58
(655, 94.5%)
4.52
(221, 95.0%)
4.58
(176, 96.0%)
4.57
(472, 95.1%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.30
(649, 87.1%)
4.32
(221, 87.8%)
4.33
(177, 85.9%)
4.30
(467, 86.9%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.18
(632, 80.2%)
4.15
(210, 76.2%)
4.18
(170, 77.6%)
4.17
(457, 80.3%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.47
(654, 91.6%)
4.52
(222, 92.3%)
4.53
(177, 93.2%)
4.48
(474, 92.0%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.42
(655, 89.0%)
4.43
(220, 89.5%)
4.41
(177, 89.3%)
4.45
(473, 88.8%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.22
(647, 84.2%)
4.20
(217, 81.6%)
4.25
(173, 83.8%)
4.24
(470, 84.3%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.42
(654, 90.8%)
4.45
(220, 92.7%)
4.50
(177, 94.9%)
4.43
(474, 91.4%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 3.96
(640, 75.6%)
4.00
(219, 75.3%)
4.05
(166, 79.5%)
4.02
(456, 74.3%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.28
(653, 84.5%)
4.29
(221, 87.8%)
4.36
(176, 87.5%)
4.35
(470, 88.9%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.61
(619, 60.9%)
3.66
(214, 63.1%)
3.81
(165, 66.7%)
3.69
(442, 62.9%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different groups.

2. Participant Responses and the Nature of the Charges

Participant responses were analyzed according to the applicable statute, basis, or issue involved in a charge. Since between-group (charging party vs. respondent) comparisons are more meaningful in this evaluation to see whether the nature of charges affected the parties, the major focus here will be on between-group comparisons.

a. Statute

Participant responses were analyzed based on the statute at issue - Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. The only significant trend was that both participant groups--charging parties and respondents-- rated the procedural elements of their mediation session more highly than the distributive elements. Analysis of the responses of the participant groups revealed no significant differences based on the statute. As shown in Tables IX and X, the consistency of the responses of the various subgroups was rather interesting. For example, the statement concerning the respondents' satisfaction with the fairness of the results yielded a mean score of 3.65 from the first group (Title VII), 3.67 from the second group (ADEA), and 3.66 from the third group (ADA).

"Between-group comparisons" (charging party and respondent groups) of the responses yielded some significant results. Under Title VII, the perceptions of the participant groups differed significantly regarding the prompt scheduling of mediation, understanding of the process, opportunity to present views, mediator's use of fair procedures, satisfaction with the fairness of the mediation, and satisfaction with the results. In all instances, while the charging parties were positive, respondents were more positive regarding their experiences.

Table IX
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Statutes At Issue*
Statements Title VII
(Group 1)
ADEA
(Group II)
ADA
(Group III)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.23
(1165, 87.5%)
4.25
(351, 90.6%)
4.24
(385, 87.3%)
Prompt scheduling 4.26
(1190, 86.9%)
4.34
(359, 91.6%)
4.34
(394, 89.1%)
Understood the process 4.34
(1192, 91.2%)
4.35
(360, 93.1%)
4.38
(395, 91.6%)
Opportunity to present views 4.36
(1193, 88.8%)
4.38
(360, 91.1%)
4.44
(394, 90.4%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.27
(1188, 85.3%)
4.33
(354, 88.1%)
4.37
(395, 88.4%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.23
(1186, 83.3%)
4.27
(354, 85.6%)
4.32
(395, 86.1%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.42
(1191, 91.3%)
4.47
(358, 95.0%)
4.46
(395, 92.4%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.40
(1185, 89.7%)
4.42
(357, 93.3%)
4.45
(392, 92.3%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.26
(1181, 84.8%)
4.26
(357, 84.9%)
4.28
(391, 85.4%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.32
(1186, 87.8%)
4.31
(356, 89.6%)
4.38
(393, 89.6%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 3.95
(1172, 75.1%)
3.92
(352, 73.0%)
3.92
(388, 74.2%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.05
(1173, 78.2%)
4.09
(356, 82.0%)
4.09
(387, 78.0%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.34
(1099, 53.0%)
3.44
(328, 60.7%)
3.33
(369, 53.4%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

Table X
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Statutes At Issue*
Statements Title VII
(Group I)
ADEA
(Group II)
ADA
(Group III)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.23
(1083, 85.7%)
4.24
(317, 87.1%)
4.15
(370, 84.1%)
Prompt scheduling 4.40
(1117, 90.7%)
4.46
(328, 91.8%)
4.36
(377, 89.9%)
Understood the process 4.53
(1118, 96.2%)
4.56
(331, 95.5%)
4.52
(377, 94.7%)
Opportunity to present views 4.58
(1119, 95.4%)
4.61
(330, 96.1%)
4.52
(377, 92.8%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.31
(1110, 87.2%)
4.31
(331, 87.0%)
4.27
(375, 85.6%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.18
(1071, 80.3%)
4.16
(326, 79.1%)
4.11
(362, 76.0%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.49
(1121, 91.9%)
4.53
(331, 93.7%)
4.46
(379, 92.1%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.45
(1120, 89.6%)
4.46
(329, 90.0%)
4.41
(379, 89.4%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.25
(1104, 84.9%)
4.18
(326, 80.7%)
4.18
(377, 82.0%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.44
(1119, 92.0%)
4.48
(331, 93.7%)
4.42
(379, 91.3%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 4.01
(1084, 76.7%)
4.01
(323, 74.9%)
3.98
(372, 73.4%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.33
(1118, 87.3%)
4.35
(328, 88.7%)
4.24
(377, 86.2%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.65
(1056, 62.6%)
3.67
(315, 60.3%)
3.66
(357, 63.3%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

Similarly, between-group analysis under the ADEA yielded significant results regarding participants' satisfaction with two of the three distributive measures - satisfaction with the fairness of the mediation session and satisfaction with the results. In both instances, the respondents' responses were more positive than the charging parties' responses, indicating a greater satisfaction on the respondents' part.

Between-group analysis of participant responses based on the ADA revealed significant differences between the groups regarding participant understanding of the process, the role of the mediator in helping to clarify their needs, and their satisfaction with the fairness of mediation and with the results. While the charging parties agreed more strongly than the respondents that the mediator helped to clarify their needs, the respondents were more satisfied with the other three statements.

In summary, although the responses of the charging parties and respondents varied significantly on some questions, the mean scores of both groups on all the questions, except one (satisfaction with results), are around 4 or much higher, indicating the high marks they gave to the EEOC mediation program regardless of the applicable statute.

b. Basis

The analysis was sub-divided into the following six charge-bases: religion, gender, national origin, race, disability, and age. Analysis of the responses of the charging parties based on the bases of their charges revealed that members of group three (national origin) had a higher mean score on all the questions regarding their mediation experiences. This indicates that although all charging party groups reported positive results, this one group was even more positive about their experiences than the other five groups. Analysis of the responses of the respondent group based on the basis of their charges revealed that members of the first group (religion) were less satisfied with the distributive elements of mediation than the other five groups. This group's satisfaction with many of the procedural elements of mediation did not vary substantially from that of the other groups. Tables XI and XII present these results.

Although between-group comparisons yielded no significant results for participants whose basis was religion, there were differences based on the other five bases. Among the participants of the second group (gender), the respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that they understood the process and had an opportunity to present their views. They also expressed greater satisfaction with the fairness of the mediation session and with the results than the charging parties.

Although the participants of the third group (national origin) agreed that they were given an adequate explanation of the process and that the mediator understood their needs, the charging parties agreed more strongly than the respondents. Analysis of the responses of the fourth group (race) shows that their viewpoints were significantly different on eight out of the thirteen statements. The respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that the mediation was scheduled promptly, they understood the process, and had an opportunity to present their views. They rated the mediators highly in terms of mediators understanding their needs, being neutral in the beginning, and using fair processes. They also expressed greater satisfaction with the fairness of mediation and with the results of mediation. Thus, in all eight instances the respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that their mediation experiences were positive.

Table XI
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on the Basis of Charge*
Statements Religion
(Group I)
Gender
(Group II)
National Origin
(Group III)
Race
(Group IV)
Disability
(Group V)
Age
(Group VI)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.10
(42,
81.0%)
4.19
(499,
85.4%)
4.42
(145,
91.0%)
4.21
(616,
88.6%)
4.25
(381,
87.7%)
4.17
(349,
88.0%)
Prompt scheduling 4.43
(42,
90.5%)
4.25
(510,
85.7%)
4.49
(148,
92.6%)
4.23
(632,
87.3%)
4.34
(390,
89.2%)
4.28
(356,
88.5%)
Understood the process 4.40
(42,
92.9%)
4.35
(509,
91.4%)
4.42
(148,
92.6%)
4.28
(632,
90.5%)
4.38
(391,
91.8%)
4.31
(355,
91.5%)
Opportunity to present views 4.45
(42,
92.9%)
4.35
(510,
88.0%)
4.47
(148,
90.5%)
4.28
(633,
87.2%)
4.44
(390,
90.5%)
4.35
(354,
91.0%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.31
(42,
83.3%)
4.27
(507,
84.0%)
4.55
(144,
92.4%)
4.18
(632,
83.4%)
4.37
(391,
88.2%)
4.25
(356,
85.4%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.22
(41,
78.0%)
4.21
(506,
81.4%)
4.45
(147,
89.8%)
4.17
(631,
82.1%)
4.32
(391,
85.9%)
4.19
(353,
84.1%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.50
(42,
97.6%)
4.46
(508,
91.9%)
4.59
(149,
96.6%)
4.34
(632,
89.7%)
4.47
(391,
92.6%)
4.38
(355,
92.4%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.55
(42,
95.2%)
4.41
(507,
89.2%)
4.55
(149,
94.6%)
4.34
(627,
88.8%)
4.46
(388,
92.5%)
4.38
(351,
90.6%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.17
(42,
81.0%)
4.24
(506,
83.0%)
4.51
(145,
93.1%)
4.21
(629,
83.9%)
4.29
(387,
85.5%)
4.25
(352,
85.5%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.40
(40,
90.0%)
4.34
(508,
87.6%)
4.50
(147,
92.5%)
4.22
(631,
85.9%)
4.38
(389,
89.7%)
4.29
(355,
88.2%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 3.75
(40,
62.5%)
3.91
(503,
72.8%)
4.21
(146,
81.5%)
3.88
(623,
73.8%)
3.93
(384,
74.5%)
3.95
(349,
77.1%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.00
(41,
80.5%)
4.07
(499,
77.4%)
4.30
(146,
87.7%)
3.99
(623,
77.7%)
4.09
(383,
77.8%)
4.06
(345,
81.4%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.13
(38,
47.4%)
3.27
(473,
47.8%)
3.63
(137,
62.8%)
3.32
(587,
53.3%)
3.33
(365,
53.2%)
3.30
(330,
54.8%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.


Table XII
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on the Basis of Charge*
Statements Religion
(Group I)
Gender
(Group II)
National Origin
(Group III)
Race
(Group IV)
Disability
(Group V)
Age
(Group VI)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.00
(38,
78.9%)
4.19
(468,
84.4%)
4.18
(143,
85.3%)
4.21
(567,
85.4%)
4.15
(365,
83.8%)
4.17
(314,
83.4%)
Prompt scheduling 4.47
(38,
92.1%)
4.36
(480,
89.4%)
4.39
(150,
91.3%)
4.38
(588,
90.6%)
4.37
(372,
89.8%)
4.38
(325,
89.8%)
Understood the process 4.46
(39,
97.4%)
4.49
(481,
94.4%)
4.48
(149,
96.0%)
4.51
(588,
96.6%)
4.52
(372,
94.6%)
4.56
(325,
96.0%)
Opportunity to present views 4.53
(38,
97.4%)
4.53
(480,
93.3%)
4.56
(150,
94.0%)
4.57
(590,
95.8%)
4.52
(372,
93.0%)
4.59
(326,
95.1%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.29
(38,
86.8%)
4.26
(477,
84.5%)
4.34
(148,
87.2%)
4.31
(586,
87.7%)
4.28
(370,
85.7%)
4.29
(324,
86.7%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.03
(38,
71.1%)
4.14
(459,
78.0%)
4.28
(145,
84.1%)
4.16
(567,
80.2%)
4.11
(357,
75.9%)
4.20
(317,
80.1%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.51
(39,
92.3%)
4.45
(481,
91.1%)
4.49
(150,
91.3%)
4.45
(590,
90.8%)
4.46
(374,
92.0%)
4.54
(327,
93.0%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.41
(39,
84.6%)
4.37
(481,
86.3%)
4.53
(150,
92.0%)
4.43
(588,
90.6%)
4.42
(374,
89.8%)
4.42
(327,
88.4%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.23
(39,
84.6%)
4.18
(473,
82.0%)
4.34
(149,
85.9%)
4.24
(579,
85.8%)
4.18
(372,
82.3%)
4.25
(325,
83.7%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.26
(38,
89.5%)
4.41
(482,
89.6%)
4.43
(150,
92.7%)
4.42
(589,
92.4%)
4.43
(374,
91.7%)
4.44
(327,
90.8%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 3.79
(38,
60.5%)
3.97
(461,
75.1%)
4.14
(146,
80.1%)
3.95
(570,
76.3%)
3.98
(367,
73.6%)
4.07
(317,
78.2%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.23
(39,
87.2%)
4.32
(479,
85.8%)
4.41
(151,
90.7%)
4.28
(588,
87.1%)
4.25
(372,
86.6%)
4.32
(324,
84.9%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.03
(33,
39.4%)
3.62
(454,
60.8%)
3.68
(142,
63.4%)
3.59
(555,
61.3%)
3.67
(352,
63.9%)
3.64
(305,
62.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

Among the participants of the fifth group (disability), the respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that they understood the process and that they were more satisfied with the fairness of mediation and with the results of mediation. Charging parties, on the other hand, felt more strongly that the mediator helped to clarify their needs.

Among the participants of the sixth group (age) there were significant differences between the charging parties and respondents on six of the thirteen statements. While both groups expressed positive sentiments regarding the various elements, respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that they understood the process, they had an opportunity to present their views, the mediator was neutral in the beginning, and that the mediator used fair procedures. They were more satisfied with the fairness of the session and with the results than the charging parties.

c. Issue

The issues under consideration were discharge, terms and conditions of employment, harassment, sexual harassment, promotion, wages, discipline, and reasonable accommodation. Between-group analysis of participant responses shows that there were only a few significant differences based on issue. There were no differences among participants whose issues were "wages" and "discipline." Among participants whose issue was "discharge," respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties about the prompt scheduling of mediation, understanding of the process, opportunity to present views, and the mediator's use of fair procedures. Similarly, they expressed greater satisfaction with the fairness of the mediation and with the results of mediation. Among the participants of the "terms and conditions" group, respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that they had an opportunity to present their views. They were also more satisfied with the fairness of mediation and with the results of mediation.

Among participants whose issue was "harassment," the respondents agreed more strongly than the charging parties that they understood the process and had an opportunity to present their views. They also expressed greater satisfaction with the fairness of mediation. Respondents, whose charge was based on the issues of "sexual harassment" and "promotion," agreed more strongly than the charging parties that they had an opportunity to present their views. Additionally, among the participants whose issue was "promotion," respondents agreed more strongly that they understood the process and that the mediator used fair procedures. Similarly, they were more satisfied with the fairness of mediation and with the results. Results also showed that among those participants whose charge was based on "reasonable accommodation," respondents were more satisfied than the charging parties with the results of mediation.

In summary, participant responses did not vary widely based on the issue of their charges. Even where there were significant variations, it is imperative to note that, with few exceptions, the mean scores were much higher than four, indicating high participant satisfaction with the various elements of the EEOC mediation program. As we have seen previously, the procedural elements received higher scores than the distributive elements. It should also be noted that when there were differences based on issue, it was the respondent group that expressed greater satisfaction than the charging party group.

Table XIII
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Issue*
Statements Discharge Terms and
Conditions
Harassment Sexual
Harassment
Promotion Wages Discipline Reasonable
Accommodation
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.23
(800, 88.3%)
4.32
(312, 90.4%)
4.25
(276, 88.4%)
4.13
(172, 82.6%)
4.19
(161, 85.7%)
4.27
(151, 88.7%)
4.27
(149, 89.3%)
4.17
(143, 83.2%)
Prompt scheduling 4.27
(815, 87.2%)
4.35
(317, 89.0%)
4.32
(285, 89.1%)
4.27
(174, 85.1%)
4.24
(169, 87.0%)
4.44
(154, 93.5%)
4.26
(152, 88.8%)
4.30
(145, 87.6%)
Understood the process 4.34
(817, 92.2%)
4.40
(319, 91.8%)
4.36
(285, 92.3%)
4.32
(174, 89.1%)
4.26
(168, 88.7%)
4.41
(154, 92.9%)
4.41
(155, 94.2%)
4.37
(145, 91.7%)
Opportunity to present views 4.38
(814, 90.0%)
4.43
(317, 91.2%)
4.35
(285, 89.5%)
4.30
(174, 85.6%)
4.26
(170, 87.6%)
4.42
(154, 94.2%)
4.40
(154, 90.3%)
4.48
(145, 91.7%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.30
(812, 87.8%)
4.30
(317, 85.8%)
4.30
(285, 85.3%)
4.21
(173, 79.2%)
4.17
(169, 81.1%)
4.36
(153, 90.2%)
4.32
(152, 84.9%)
4.39
(145, 88.3%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.25
(812, 85.1%)
4.26
(313, 84.0%)
4.24
(286, 81.8%)
4.18
(171, 80.7%)
4.22
(169, 81.1%)
4.35
(152, 89.5%)
4.26
(153, 83.0%)
4.29
(145, 84.8%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.41
(813, 91.9%)
4.46
(319, 90.6%)
4.48
(287, 92.3%)
4.43
(175, 89.7%)
4.41
(169, 92.3%)
4.49
(154, 93.5%)
4.53
(154, 95.5%)
4.41
(145, 91.7%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.42
(810, 91.2%)
4.44
(315, 89.8%)
4.46
(283, 91.2%)
4.39
(174, 87.9%)
4.37
(168, 89.3%)
4.47
(154, 92.2%)
4.51
(154, 92.9%)
4.41
(143, 90.9%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.29
(810, 86.0%)
4.28
(317, 84.9%)
4.32
(284, 84.9%)
4.24
(173, 82.7%)
4.20
(169, 82.8%)
4.36
(151, 88.7%)
4.36
(153, 87.6%)
4.31
(143, 86.0%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.32
(813, 88.6%)
4.35
(316, 88.6%)
4.36
(285, 88.4%)
4.32
(174, 85.6%)
4.20
(168, 85.1%)
4.37
(153, 90.2%)
4.34
(155, 89.0%)
4.39
(145, 90.3%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 3.95
(805, 75.9%)
3.92
(316, 73.7%)
3.96
(279, 76.0%)
3.94
(170, 74.1%)
3.83
(168, 69.6%)
4.18
(151, 83.4%)
4.05
(152, 77.0%)
3.87
(140, 72.9%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.05
(802, 78.6%)
4.09
(315, 78.7%)
4.11
(282, 80.1%)
4.10
(170, 79.4%)
3.98
(166, 79.5%)
4.24
(152, 86.2%)
4.12
(153, 81.0%)
4.06
(144, 77.8%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.39
(756, 54.1%)
3.42
(296, 54.7%)
3.41
(269, 56.1%)
3.33
(166, 52.4%)
3.17
(158, 48.1%)
3.51
(141, 63.1%)
3.49
(143, 58.0%)
3.28
(137, 49.6%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

Table XIV
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Issue*
Statements Discharge Terms and
Conditions
Harassment Sexual
Harassment
Promotion Wages Discipline Reasonable
Accommodation
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.21
(752, 85.8%)
4.27
(278, 86.7%)
4.17
(255, 85.5%)
4.16
(164, 83.5%)
4.13
(152, 79.6%)
4.17
(133, 84.2%)
4.09
(137, 79.6%)
4.06
(133, 78.2%)
Prompt scheduling 4.38
(776, 90.7%)
4.36
(287, 88.9%)
4.31
(261, 88.9%)
4.32
(165, 87.3%)
4.44
(156, 91.7%)
4.40
(136, 91.2%)
4.33
(138, 89.9%)
4.39
(135, 88.1%)
Understood the process 4.55
(773, 96.8%)
4.50
(289, 95.2%)
4.50
(263, 96.6%)
4.46
(165, 94.5%)
4.49
(157, 94.3%)
4.47
(136, 93.4%)
4.46
(137, 94.9%)
4.54
(136, 94.1%)
Opportunity to present views 4.57
(776, 95.4%)
4.60
(287, 96.2%)
4.57
(261, 95.0%)
4.52
(166, 92.8%)
4.50
(157, 93.6%)
4.52
(137, 93.4%)
4.53
(138, 94.9%)
4.50
(137, 91.2%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.35
(771, 88.8%)
4.32
(284, 88.7%)
4.27
(259, 86.1%)
4.22
(163, 82.8%)
4.28
(156, 86.5%)
4.27
(136,85.3%)
4.33
(138, 86.2%)
4.27
(136, 86.8%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.21
(756, 82.1%)
4.13
(276, 78.6%)
4.13
(252, 78.2%)
4.10
(155, 80.0%)
4.14
(150, 78.0%)
4.13
(128, 73.4%)
4.18
(133, 80.5%)
4.08
(132, 73.5%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.49
(777, 91.8%)
4.49
(289, 92.4%)
4.40
(263, 91.3%)
4.37
(165, 90.3%)
4.48
(157, 90.4%)
4.47
(137, 91.2%)
4.42
(140, 91.4%)
4.43
(137, 91.2%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.44
(776, 90.2%)
4.49
(288, 91.3%)
4.40
(263, 88.6%)
4.37
(166, 84.9%)
4.41
(157, 90.4%)
4.37
(137, 86.9%)
4.36
(139, 87.1%)
4.42
(137, 88.3%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.23
(765, 83.5%)
4.17
(284, 82.7%)
4.19
(262, 83.2%)
4.19
(164, 83.5%)
4.17
(155, 83.2%)
4.23
(136, 85.3%)
4.17
(138, 82.6%)
4.25
(136, 83.8%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.44
(777, 91.6%)
4.44
(288, 90.6%)
4.40
(263, 90.9%)
4.39
(166, 89.8%)
4.42
(156, 93.6%)
4.40
(136, 91.2%)
4.38
(140, 90.7%)
4.45
(137, 91.2%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 4.02
(756, 76.3%)
3.97
(275, 76.0%)
3.95
(255, 75.7%)
3.95
(159, 74.2%)
3.83
(156, 69.2%)
4.01
(133, 77.4%)
4.01
(135, 78.5%)
3.99
(134, 75.4%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.31
(775, 86.8%)
4.39
(289, 88.6%)
4.30
(263, 85.9%)
4.23
(166, 84.3%)
4.35
(155, 90.3%)
4.26
(137, 83.2%)
4.30
(140, 85.7%)
4.26
(136, 84.6%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.67
(740, 63.4%)
3.73
(274, 64.6%)
3.59
(244, 60.2%)
3.58
(153, 58.8%)
3.57
(143, 60.1%)
3.69
(131, 64.1%)
3.66
(133, 63.2%)
3.61
(128, 57.0%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the charging parties and respondents.

3. Participant Responses and the Characteristics of the Mediation Sessions

Participant responses were analyzed according to the characteristics of the mediation sessions to see if they varied according to mediator type, representation, and mediation status. The analysis is based on within-group comparisons.

a. Mediator Type

The EEOC mediation used both internal mediators (EEOC staff) and external mediators for mediation. We analyzed participant responses to see whether they varied according to the type of mediator used during the sessions. We found only three significant differences (see the bolded numbers in Table XV) in the responses of the charging parties and respondents based on mediator type. Both charging parties and respondents who had an internal mediator expressed greater agreement about the prompt scheduling of the mediation than those who had an external mediator. Charging parties also rated internal mediators highly than external mediators regarding the realistic development of options.

It should be noted that the comparison of mean scores from the six statements regarding the performance of the mediators reveals that charging parties were slightly more satisfied with the performance of the internal mediator. Respondents on the other hand, though satisfied with both types of mediators, gave external mediators a slightly higher score on neutrality. This is especially true regarding their attitudes concerning the neutrality of the mediators in the beginning (mean of 4.56 for external mediators and 4.47 for internal mediators). However, as the mediation progressed, their attitudes changed and this can be seen from the fact that on the question concerning whether the mediator remained neutral during the session, the mean score was 4.45 for external mediators and 4.43 for internal mediators.<122> A significant percentage of participants (mostly over 80%), regardless of mediator type, agreed or strongly agreed with the most of the statements about mediation, indicating strong participant satisfaction with mediation. Table XV depicts the results based on mediator type.

b. Representation

During the mediation some participants were represented, whereas others were not. Representation did not mean just legal counsel; representatives included any individual who was present as an advocate. We analyzed participant responses to see whether the responses varied depending on the presence of a representative. Our analysis of the mean scores of the participant groups revealed several significant differences based on representation. Among charging parties, those without representation were more in agreement than those with representation regarding the mediator's role in the clarification of needs and in the development of options. Similarly, charging parties who were without representation agreed more strongly than those with representation that most of the options developed during the session were realistic solutions to the resolution of charges. They were also more satisfied with the results of the mediation.

Table XV
Participant Satisfaction Based on Mediator Type*
Statements Charging Parties Respondents
  Internal External Internal External
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.26
(1277, 88.4%)
4.20
(343, 88.6%)
4.23
(1189, 86.7%)
4.14
(311, 81.4%)
Prompt Scheduling 4.32
(1311, 88.6%)
4.16
(346, 85.0%)
4.43
(1226, 91.8%)
4.27
(317, 85.8%)
Understood the process 4.37
(1314, 91.9%)
4.31
(345, 91.3%)
4.54
(1228, 96.0%)
4.50
(317, 95.0%)
Opportunity to present views 4.39
(1314, 89.6%)
4.37
(346, 90.8%)
4.57
(1227, 94.9%)
4.57
(320, 95.9%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.32
(1309, 86.6%)
4.23
(344, 85.5%)
4.31
(1221, 87.1%)
4.30
(315, 86.3%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.28
(1309, 85.1%)
4.18
(339, 82.0%)
4.17
(1182, 79.8%)
4.16
(307, 77.5%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.45
(1313, 92.2%)
4.41
(344, 92.2%)
4.47
(1229, 91.5%)
4.56
321, (94.4%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.44
(1305, 90.9%)
4.36
(342, 90.6%)
4.43
(1227, 89.0%)
4.45
(321, 90.3%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.29
(1303, 85.0%)
4.21
(341, 86.5%)
4.24
(1215, 83.9%)
4.19
(314, 83.8%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.34
(1309, 88.5%)
4.33
(342, 88.9%)
4.44
(1229, 91.9%)
4.45
(319, 92.2%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 3.99
(1295, 76.5%)
3.83
(336, 71.1%)
3.99
(1194, 75.5%)
4.02
(309, 75.7%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.10
(1294, 79.9%)
3.99
(337, 75.4%)
4.30
(1227, 87.1%)
4.34
(316, 85.4%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.39
(1213, 55.2%)
3.37
(318, 53.8%)
3.68
(1156, 63.6%)
3.62
(307, 59.0%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the participants in cases mediated by external mediators and those mediated by internal mediators.

Respondents differed significantly on eight statements concerning mediation based on representation. Those who were without representation agreed more strongly than those who were represented that they received an adequate explanation of the process and that their sessions were scheduled promptly. They also rated the mediator higher with regard to the mediator's understanding of their needs, clarification of issues, assistance in the development of options, and neutrality in the beginning. They were also more satisfied with the development of realistic options and with the fairness of the process.

Table XVI
Participant Satisfaction Based on Representation*
Statements Charging Parties Respondents
  With Representation Without Representation With Representation Without Representation
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.20
(669, 85.7%)
4.28
(952, 90.1%)
4.12
(877, 82.8%)
4.33
(612, 88.7%)
Prompt scheduling 4.26
(664, 87.3%)
4.30
(963, 88.1%)
4.34
(909, 89.2%)
4.46
(623, 92.3%)
Understood the process 4.37
(692, 91.6%)
4.34
(968, 91.5%)
4.50
(913, 95.0%)
4.57
(621, 96.9%)
Opportunity to present views 4.39
(693, 88.9%)
4.38
(968, 90.5%)
4.55
(914, 94.3%)
4.60
(623, 96.0%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.26
(690, 83.9%)
4.33
(963, 88.2%)
4.25
(906, 85.2%)
4.39
(620, 89.4%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.18
(687, 80.6%)
4.30
(962, 87.1%)
4.11
(873, 77.8%)
4.25
(606, 81.5%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.44
(693, 91.8%)
4.43
(965, 92.3%)
4.44
(918, 91%)
4.55
(621, 93.6%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.41
(690, 90.3%)
4.42
(958, 91.0%)
4.40
(916, 88.1%)
4.48
(621, 90.3%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.20
(687, 81.4%)
4.31
(958, 87.8%)
4.14
(900, 81.2%)
4.37
(619, 87.9%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.34
(691, 88.4%)
4.32
(961, 88.6%)
4.41
(916, 91.3%)
4.48
(621, 92.6%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 3.86
(674, 70.9%)
4.01
(958, 78.2%)
3.95
(882, 74.8%)
4.07
(612, 76.8%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.12
(685, 79.6%)
4.03
(951, 78.2%)
4.27
(917, 85.7%)
4.37
(619, 88.5%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.22
(630, 49.0%)
3.48
(903, 58.5%)
3.62
(858, 60.4%)
3.74
(593, 65.9%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the participants with representation and without representation.

In general, it appears that participants who were without representation found mediators to be more helpful than those who were with representation. They were also more satisfied with the outcomes. Table XVI shows the results based on representation.

c. Mediation Status

The attitudes of the participants towards mediation differed, significantly at times, based on their mediation status. As explained before, the participants in the study belong to one of three different groups based on the status of their mediation session: (1) mediation is completed, and the charge has been resolved in mediation; (2) mediation is completed, but the charge has not been resolved and the parties will not continue the mediation; and (3) mediation is ongoing.

As one would expect, the perceptions of the participants were affected by the resolution status of their mediation. Table XVII indicates that satisfaction of the charging parties with both the procedural and distributive elements varied significantly based on mediation status. Charging parties who belong to the second group ("mediation finished, charge not resolved") consistently rated all the statements regarding mediation lower than the other two groups. Members of the first group ("mediation finished, and charge resolved") had the most positive feedback.

Among the procedural statements, questions concerning the performance of the mediator in his/her role as the "helper" (i.e., in the clarification of needs and in the development of options) received the lowest scores from the second group and the third group, the two groups whose dispute was not resolved. The data also show that the charging parties, regardless of their mediation status, were able to differentiate between the procedural and distributive elements of mediation. For example, analysis of the means scores of the second group reveals that the scores for all the procedural statements were either above 4 or close to 4 indicating participant satisfaction with the process. However, their scores for the distributive elements were lower.

Table XVII
Charging Parties' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Status*
Statements Completed and resolved
(Group I)
Completed,
not resolved
(Group II)
Ongoing
(Group III)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.31
(915, 90.3%)
4.12
(301, 85.0%)
4.22
(227, 85.5%)
Prompt scheduling 4.36
(931, 89.4%)
4.16
(304, 85.5%)
4.31
(231, 88.3%)
Understood the process 4.43
(935, 93.5%)
4.22
(303, 88.4%)
4.35
(231, 90.9%)
Opportunity to present views 4.49
(932, 92.6%)
4.21
(304, 84.5%)
4.38
(232, 88.4%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.42
(931, 90.8%)
4.07
(301, 78.1%)
4.27
(232, 84.5%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.41
(927, 89.8%)
4.00
(302, 75.2%)
4.14
(228, 78.1%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.50
(932, 93.7%)
4.32
(304, 89.8%)
4.50
(232, 93.1%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.50
(927, 92.7%)
4.25
(303, 85.8%)
4.45
(231, 91.3%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.45
(928, 91.9%)
3.94
(299, 70.2%)
4.14
(229, 81.2%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.41
(927, 90.5%)
4.20
(304, 85.9%)
4.37
(232, 87.9%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 4.23
(930, 85.9%)
3.47
(291, 55.3%)
3.68
(226, 61.5%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.20
(925, 83.9%)
3.88
(300, 69.3%)
4.03
(231, 76.2%)
Satisfaction with the results 3.87
(879, 70.5%)
2.24
(287, 18.1%)
2.99
(203, 37.9%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different groups.

The mean scores for the statements concerning the distributive elements were significantly lower for the second group. As indicated in the Table XVII, the mean scores of the second group regarding the realistic development of options, satisfaction with the fairness of mediation, and satisfaction with the results were significantly lower than those of the other groups. As the numbers indicate, charging parties whose mediation session was finished and their case resolved were more satisfied than the other two groups (whose dispute was not resolved) regarding the various elements of mediation, especially regarding the outcome of mediation.

The analysis of the responses of the respondents based on the status of their mediation session shows that even though their responses regarding the distributive elements varied significantly based on their mediation status, their responses to the procedural elements of mediation were similar with two exceptions. The exceptions pertained to statements regarding the mediator helping to clarify needs and developing options. As shown in Table XVIII, respondent responses regarding the distributive elements of mediation were similar to those of the charging parties. Members of the first group ("mediation finished, charge resolved") were more satisfied with the outcomes than the other two groups.

To summarize this section, participants' satisfaction with the distributive elements varied with their mediation status; so did their perception of the role of mediator in the clarification of needs and development of options. Among the participants, the responses of charging parties varied more dramatically based on the status of mediation. The bottom line is that where the dispute was resolved, the ratings were higher.

Table XVIII
Respondents' Satisfaction Based on Mediation Status*
Statements Completed and resolved
(Group I)
Completed,
not resolved
(Group II)
Ongoing
(Group III)
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.20
(922, 84.3%)
4.28
(308, 87.7%)
4.21
(203, 87.7%)
Prompt scheduling 4.41
(952, 90.8%)
4.41
(314, 91.4%)
4.33
(206, 89.3%)
Understood the process 4.54
(952, 95.9%)
4.54
(314, 96.2%)
4.48
(207, 94.2%)
Opportunity to present views 4.59
(957, 95.3%)
4.55
(312, 95.5%)
4.53
(207, 94.7%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.35
(950, 88.6%)
4.25
(311, 83.3%)
4.25
(204, 86.3%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.24
(920, 81.7%)
4.06
(300, 73.7%)
4.05
(198, 76.3%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.47
(956, 91.1%)
4.55
(314, 94.6%)
4.44
(208, 91.8%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.45
(956, 89.1%)
4.42
(313, 89.1%)
4.41
(207, 89.9%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.37
(947, 89.3%)
3.94
(304, 71.4%)
4.01
(206, 77.7%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.46
(957, 92.2%)
4.44
(314, 91.1%)
4.38
(206, 92.7%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 4.26
(947, 87.1%)
3.43
(292, 50.7%)
3.73
(199, 63.3%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.37
(956, 88.4%)
4.21
(312, 82.4%)
4.24
(208, 87.0%)
Satisfaction with the results 4.15
(923, 81.0%)
2.55
(292, 19.9%)
3.20
(187, 44.4%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists among the mean responses of the different groups.

4. Participant Responses Based on Satisfaction with Mediation Results

Participant responses were analyzed based on their satisfaction with mediation results. For both charging parties and respondents, the results on every question varied significantly based on mediation results. As shown in Table XIX, participants who were satisfied with the results of mediation agreed more strongly on the different procedural and distributive questions that were asked than participants who were not satisfied with the results.

5. Summary of Section C

To summarize this section, participants rated the various elements of the EEOC mediation program highly. In general, they gave higher marks to the procedural aspects of the mediation program than to the distributive aspects. Among the distributive aspects, participant satisfaction was high regarding the fairness of the mediation. While participant responses sometimes varied significantly based on the different variables discussed above, it should be noted that their mean scores were almost always above four points (on a five-point scale), indicating their satisfaction with the various elements of the mediation.

Table XIX
Participant Satisfaction Based on Their Satisfaction with the Mediation Result*
Statements Charging Parties Respondents
  Satisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Not Satisfied
Procedural Elements
Explanation, Scheduling, and Voice
Adequate explanation 4.43
(826, 93.5%)
3.94
(395, 79.2%)
4.31
(886, 88.6%)
3.94
(253, 77.9%)
Prompt scheduling 4.47
(843, 92.2%)
4.01
(398, 80.7%)
4.49
(917, 92.6%)
4.08
(259, 81.9%)
Understood the process 4.53
(848, 96.5%)
4.08
(397, 83.1%)
4.63
(918, 98.1%)
4.27
(260, 89.2%)
Opportunity to present views 4.60
(845, 95.7%)
4.05
(398, 80.7%)
4.70
(923, 98.2%)
4.20
(258, 84.9%)
Mediator
Mediator understood needs 4.58
(840, 95.4%)
3.89
(397, 73.0%)
4.50
(915, 94.3%)
3.84
(257, 67.7%)
Mediator helped clarify needs 4.57
(838, 95.0%)
3.79
(396, 69.2%)
4.38
(881, 87.2%)
3.71
(252, 59.9%)
Mediator neutral in the beginning 4.61
(845, 96.2%)
4.16
(398, 84.7%)
4.62
(922, 95.3%)
4.15
(259, 82.2%)
Mediator remained neutral 4.64
(839, 97.1%)
4.09
(396, 81.6%)
4.61
(922, 94.6%)
4.01
(258, 76.7%)
Mediator helped develop options 4.58
(841, 95.6%)
3.75
(394, 65.2%)
4.48
(911, 92.2%)
3.59
(254, 60.6%)
Mediator used fair procedures 4.57
(839, 95.8%)
3.99
(398, 77.9%)
4.62
(922, 97.4%)
4.02
(260, 78.8%)
Distributive Elements
Development of realistic options 4.44
(842, 93.5%)
3.13
(389, 45.5%)
4.38
(909, 90.8%)
3.07
(246, 39.0%)
Satisfaction with the fairness of the session 4.48
(838, 95.1%)
3.45
(390, 55.6%)
4.59
(920, 97.2%)
3.65
(258, 62%)

*Satisfaction is measured by the "mean responses" of the participants on a Likert scale (scale of 1 {strongly disagree} to 5 {strongly agree}) and by the percentage of participants who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements. The sample size (n) is also given for evaluation purposes. Figures in bold refer to statements where a statistically significant difference (evaluated at 95% confidence level) exists between the mean responses of the participants who were satisfied with the results and those who were not satisfied with the results of the mediation.

D. Would the Parties Use the Program Again?

As the literature review section indicated, a test of acceptability of a program is the willingness of its participants to use the program again. The parties were asked whether, if they were party to a charge before the EEOC in the future, they would be willing to participate again in the mediation program (i.e., "willingness to return"). As shown in Charts F & G, 91% of the charging parties and 96% of the respondents indicated that they would be willing to use the program again!

The willingness to return was analyzed according to the following variables: mediator type, representation, participant satisfaction, mediation status, status, basis, company size, and issue (Appendix C2.1-C2.8). The results indicate that regardless of the variable involved, an overwhelming percentage (over 90% with few exceptions) of both charging parties and respondents were willing to participate in the program in the future. Respondents were more willing than charging parties to use the program again.

One could argue that the ultimate test of a system is the willingness of the parties, who did not obtain what they wanted to use the system again. As Charts H & I indicate, regardless of whether the participants obtained what they wanted from the mediation or not, they overwhelmingly indicated that they were willing to participate in the program again (if the need arises). This can be viewed as a very strong indication of their positive experiences with the EEOC mediation program.

Charging Parties Willingness to Participate in the EEOC Mediation Program (details in text)
Respondents Willingness to Participate in the EEOC Mediation Program (details in text)
Charging Parties Willingness to Participate in the EEOC Mediation Program, Among Those Who Did Not Obtain What They Wanted (details in text) Respondents Willingness to Participate in the EEOC Mediation Program, Among Those Who Did Not Obtain What They Wanted (details in text)

previous | start | next

This page was last modified on October 2, 2000.

Home Return to Home Page