When a worker files a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) alleging discrimination, the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process often serves as a mechanism to resolve disputes without the need for lengthy litigation. This process includes methods such as mediation and arbitration, which aim to offer a faster, less adversarial resolution to disputes.
Although often more efficient, some question whether the process is fair. A recent survey conducted by the EEOC as part of the August Equal Employment Opportunity Commission report on the use of ADR finds the process may be missing the mark.
What are the benefits of the ADR process?
The EEOC’s ADR process offers several benefits. If used wisely, this can mean the process provides key advantages including:
- Speed and Efficiency: ADR typically resolves disputes faster than traditional litigation, reducing the emotional and financial strain on complainants.
- Confidentiality: ADR sessions are private, which helps protect the privacy of all parties involved in sensitive discrimination cases.
These benefits suggest that ADR can provide a fair and effective means for resolving disputes, appealing to those who seek a resolution outside the courtroom.
What concerns were discovered within the EEOC’s survey regarding ADR?
Despite its advantages, some aspects of the ADR process may raise concerns about fairness. More specifically, the agency’s survey found that the majority of complainants found the process unfair while most managers reported the opposite. This finding supports concerns that the process skews towards management.
The ADR process in EEOC complaints offers a potentially faster, less adversarial route to resolving discrimination disputes, promoting efficiency and confidentiality. However, concerns about impartiality affect perceptions of fairness. Parties should weigh the benefits and concerns carefully to decide if ADR is the appropriate pathway for their situation. Those who choose to move forward should take steps to advocate for their interests to better ensure a more favorable outcome.