|
ACR Trainer Resource Project
Mediation Case Scenarios:
Self Determination
|
Self Determination
- Case Secnario 6: Employment
- Case Scenario 7: Employment
- Case Scenario 9: Employment
- Case Scenario 16: Type of case not specified
- Case Scenario 20: Employment
Case Scenario 6
- Ethics Issue: Fairness of the Process, Self-Determination, Impartiality
- Type of Case Mediated: Employment
- Length: 98 words
- Author: Corder/Thompson & Associates, www.corderthompson.com
The outcome of the mediation is that Party 1, an employee, is agreeing to do several things and Party 2, the supervisor, is agreeing to do nothing. You know that one of the things Party 1 is agreeing to amounts to giving up things to which she/he is entitled by organizational policy. You have reality tested the agreement and both parties appear to understand the agreement and both have indicated a willingness to sign it. You are concerned that Party 1 is intimidated by Party 2 and may feel that he/she must agree to whatever the supervisor demands.
Case Scenario 7
- Ethics Issue: Impartiality, Self Determination
- Type of Case Mediated: Employment
- Length: 85 words
- Author: Corder/Thompson & Associates, www.corderthompson.com
You are an internal mediator mediating a dispute between two employees who have been “strongly encouraged” by their supervisor to attend mediation. They are both very angry with the supervisor, in addition to intensely disliking one another. However, they are discussing the possibility of agreeing to something they believe will allow them to “get even” with the supervisor. What they are discussing is not illegal and doesn’t technically violate agency policy. However, you know that it will have serious negative effects on their division’s performance.
Case Scenario 9
- Ethics Issue: Self-Determination
- Type of Case Mediated: Employment
- Length: 143 words
- Author: Corder/Thompson & Associates, www.corderthompson.com
You are mediating a grievance involving an employee who claims that her termination was the result of discrimination because of a disability. In addition to the employee, the employee’s supervisor, and the Director of Human Resources, there are also attorneys representing the employee and the agency. The expression of feelings has been intense, but the parties are finally moving toward an agreement which they seem to find satisfactory. The employee is about to settle for an apology, severance pay, and access to the agency library for two years. The employee’s attorney clearly does not want her/his client to enter into this agreement and is interfering with the clients’ communication and movement toward an agreement. You are pretty sure that part of the attorney’s concern is that the settlement amount is not sufficient to cover the attorney’s fees and the employee has limited resources.
Case Scenario 16
- Ethics Issue: Self-Determination
- Type of Case Mediated: Not Specified
- Length: 49 words
- Author: Corder/Thompson & Associates, www.corderthompson.com
You have just spent two hours writing and reality-testing a three-page agreement. When you pass it around for signatures, one party says, "I'll sign it, but I don't like it." When you express some concern, the party refuses to talk about his/her reservations and insists on signing the agreement.
Case Scenario 20
- Ethics Issue: Self-Determination
- Type of Case Mediated: Employment
- Length: 175 words
- Author: Charles Pou, chipbloc@aol.com
Co-mediators are mediating an EEO lawsuit. In joint session the employee/plaintiff lays out a very strong case (prior excellent performance evaluations, good attendance record for 15 years, clearly discriminatory personnel actions by supervisor, demonstrable economic harm (well over $500.000), repeated slurs based on employee’s [race/sex/whatever] that have made the workplace hostile, failure of management to address the employee’s repeated informal complaints]. Defendant/corporation’s counsel -- a white male -- is openly antagonistic to employee in joint session, states that standard procedures were followed at all times, and makes some vague threats about the employee’s future at the firm. He offers little hope of any flexibility in settling.
In caucus with defendant/corporation, the client -- another white male -- grouses that “some people” just don’t fit in and can’t ever be counted on. He/she says that plaintiff just wants to “hit the jackpot” and then take it easy. Defendant/corporation offers a small amount to settle all claims -- $25,000.
In next caucus, employee/plaintiff hears offer and agrees to accept it in the interest of getting things resolved.
Training Project Home | About Teaching | Activities | Scenarios | Resources | Board | Policies
