Glenn Currier c/o ACR ACR Training Section

Professional Development > ACR Trainers Resource Project > Mediation Case Scenarios > Scenario: Informed Decisions

ACR Trainers Resource Project

Mediation Case Scenarios:
Informed Decision Making

Informed Decision Making

Case Scenario 23: Employment
Case Scenario 25: Employment
Case Scenario 27: Commercial

Case Scenario 23

Ethics Issue: Informed Decision Making
Type of Case Mediated: Employment
Length: 105 words
Author: Charles Pou, chipbloc@aol.com

During a workplace mediation involving extensive absences taken by the employee, a supervisor and an employee agree to a “last chance” settlement: if the employee is absent more than two times during the next year FOR ANY REASON, his/her employment will be terminated without appeal.

One of two co-mediators has recently taken a training course on mediating cases under the Americans With Disabilities Act, and is aware that the ADA provides that if the employee is absent because of a disability-related problem, his/her termination would be a violation of law. The co-mediator tells his/her colleague this during a break, and asks what they should do.

Case Scenario 25

Ethics Issue: Informed Decision Making, Role of the Mediator
Type of Case Mediated: Employment
Length: 149 words
Author: Charles Pou, chipbloc@aol.com

Mediators are co-mediating between a corporate manager and his former employer in a lawsuit for breach of contract, and civil rights violations. The plaintiff -- a single, black mother who was dismissed after several disagreements with her supervisor -- is represented by a young lawyer recently admitted to the bar.

One of the co-mediators, having just mediated a similar suit, is aware of a recent case in the same jurisdiction that strengthens the plaintiff’s case substantially. He/she strongly suspects that the plaintiff and her attorney do not know of this case

VARIANT 1: Following the joint session, the co-mediators huddle and one mentions the case and asks whether he/she should say anything to either or both parties or their counsel.

VARIANT 2: This time, plaintiff is pro se. The co-mediators again huddle and one mentions the case and asks whether he/she should say anything to either or both parties.

Case Scenario 27

Ethics Issue: Informed Decision Making, Confidentiality
Type of Case Mediated: Commercial
Length: 156 words
Author: Charles Pou, chipbloc@aol.com

In a utility rate proceeding, you realize during a confidential caucus that an intervenor party representing large commercial interests has misunderstood a craftily-worded interrogatory response from the company. Based in part on the incorrect understanding, the intervenor is about to sign an agreement that will probably cost the commercial interests more than they anticipate. Though the company careful worded the response, it does not know the intervenor is being misled.

You know the information is being misconstrued based on confidential communications with the intervenor and the company.

What would you do? Would it make a difference if:

(1) The intervenor represented poor people instead of commercial interests?

(2) In your opinion, other aspects of the agreement were favorable to the intervenor?
(3) The intervenor is not represented by a lawyer?
(4) The company knew the intervenor was being tricked?
(5) You knew for certain that the commercial interests would be paying much more than they expected?