This paper examines the legal and psychological dimensions of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR), covering its primary forms: negotiation, arbitration, mediation, conciliation, peer review, facilitation, and related techniques. Drawing on federal legislation including the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines, the paper explains how ADR reduces litigation costs, saves time, and produces mutually agreeable outcomes. It also discusses specialized applications such as ADA-related mediation and Universal Agreements to Mediate, concluding that ADR consistently outperforms traditional litigation in satisfaction, efficiency, and cost for both employment and non-employment disputes.
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a process by which a third party offers assistance to those involved in a dispute, helping them reach a resolution that is agreeable to both sides through various techniques. ADR addresses conflict by avoiding costs, delays, and the unpredictability associated with traditional adjudicatory processes, while at the same time improving workplace communication and morale.
The objective of this paper is to examine the legal and psychological aspects of the different forms of ADR—negotiation, arbitration, mediation, and summary jury trial—and to consider which types of cases each form is best suited for, as well as which form is viewed as the most effective means of conflict resolution to prevent litigation and why.
The Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (ADRA) required each federal agency to adopt a policy on ADR use in 1990. It was subsequently reenacted as the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 (ADR Act). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) required all federal agencies to establish or make available an ADR program during both the pre-complaint and formal complaint stages of the EEO process (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.).
Furthermore, EEOC regulation 29 C.F.R. Section 1615.603 requires agencies to make reasonable efforts to voluntarily settle EEO discrimination complaints as early as possible in, and throughout, the administrative process (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, n.d.). This regulation provides a strong example of workplace conflict resolution processes, particularly within the federal sector.
One form of ADR offered by the EEOC is mediation, provided as an alternative to the traditional investigative or litigation process. Mediation is an informal process that involves negotiating a conflict until it is resolved between the parties in a voluntary manner where discrimination is alleged. The EEOC identifies several key advantages of mediation:
Free: Mediation is available to the parties at no cost.
Fair and Neutral: Mediation allows both parties to have an equal say in the process and in the terms of any settlement. No determination of guilt or innocence is made during the process.
Saves Time and Money: Mediation saves time and produces monetary savings compared to litigation.
Confidential: The mediation agreement includes the signing of a confidentiality agreement by all parties. Information disclosed during mediation is not revealed to anyone outside of those present in the mediation session or relevant EEOC investigative and legal staff.
Avoids Litigation: Lengthy litigation is avoided, and mediation costs far less than a lawsuit, eliminating the uncertainties of judicial outcomes that arise in litigation.
Improves Communication: Mediation provides a neutral and confidential setting where both parties can openly discuss their views on the underlying dispute, leading to mutually satisfactory resolutions.
Unique Conflict Resolution Design: The assistance of a third party helps parties reach voluntary, mutually beneficial agreements that may resolve all important issues—not only the underlying legal dispute.
Win-Win: In ADR mediation, the resolution process is structured so that all parties stand to benefit.
An independent survey of ADR mediation participants found that 96% of all respondents and 91% of all claimants would utilize the mediation process again should the need arise and if it were available as a means of resolution.
"Nine ADR techniques explained with examples"
"ADA-specific mediation rules and UAM benefits"
"ADR endorsed as superior to litigation"
You’re 32% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.