2
Mandatory Arbitration and Workplace Discrimination Claims: Does it benefit the
Employer or Employee: Literature Review
In recent years, mandatory arbitration has become a topic of significant debate in the
realm of workplace discrimination claims. Mandatory arbitration clauses require employees to
resolve disputes outside of court, often favoring employers. This article delves into the
advantages and disadvantages of mandatory arbitration from both the employer and employee
perspectives, shedding light on its impact on workplace discrimination claims. By understanding
the perspectives of both parties, we can gain a comprehensive understanding of this contentious
issue.
Mandatory arbitration is a contractual agreement that requires parties to resolve disputes
outside of the traditional court system. Instead of litigating in a courtroom, parties present their
case to a neutral third-party arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators. Mandatory arbitration, as opposed
to voluntary arbitration, frequently is enforced upon individuals or employees as a prerequisite
for employment, service, or as a component of a consumer agreement. Concerns have been made
regarding the fairness of it and the potential for unequal bargaining power. Congress attempted to
abolish the mandatory arbitration provision for all discrimination-related claims in the 1990s, but
their efforts were unsuccessful (Encarnacion, 2020). Nevertheless, rulings made by the National
Labor Relations Board and the Supreme Court have granted employers the authority to uphold
compulsory arbitration agreements, which directly affect nonunionized businesses. Colvin and
Gough (2023) state that a nationwide survey of private-sector employers assessed the extent to
which obligatory employment arbitration is used. The findings revealed that 56.2% of nonunion
employees in the private sector are bound by compulsory arbitration procedures. Despite those
numbers, the pair report that “federal agencies do not routinely track the adoption and use of
3
mandatory employment arbitration among American firms” (p. 132). Advocates for the use of
arbitration point out that, in contrast to public litigation, it is both inexpensive and delivers
equitable outcomes specifically when it comes to employment discrimination claims
(Encarnacion, 2020). However, critics of mandatory arbitration suggest that the arbitration
system's true economic advantages arise from its propensity to reduce the likelihood of plaintiffs
prevailing in high-stakes cases (Schwartz, 2009). Additionally, Arbitration awards do not create
legal precedents, making it challenging to establish consistent legal standards or to hold firms
publicly accountable. The confidentiality that arbitration offers allows businesses to settle
disputes in a discreet manner while upholding their reputation, which is advantageous to
employers rather than claimants.
Consumers and employees have a
better chance of winning and receiving higher monetary awards in arbitration than
litigation (Pham & Donovan, 2021).
The arbitrator's decision, known as an award, is binding and enforceable.
-Unlike court decisions, arbitration awards are subject to limited judicial review.
-Arbitration awards do not create legal precedents, making it challenging to establish
consistent legal standards.
2. Benefits for Employers:
4
Confidentiality: Arbitration proceedings are typically confidential, which can protect the
employer's reputation and prevent negative publicity that may arise from public court cases.
Cost-effectiveness: Arbitration can be less costly than litigation, as it avoids lengthy court
processes and potential appeals.
Expertise: Employers can select arbitrators with relevant expertise, ensuring a fair and
knowledgeable assessment of the dispute.
Efficiency: Arbitration can save time compared to court proceedings, allowing employers
to focus on their core business activities.
3. Implications for Employees:
a. Limited Discovery: Arbitration may limit the discovery process, potentially hindering
employees' ability to gather evidence and build a strong case.
b. Lack of Transparency: Confidentiality in arbitration can sometimes limit public
awareness of workplace discrimination issues, potentially undermining broader efforts to address
systemic problems.
c. Power Imbalance: Employees may perceive a power imbalance in mandatory
arbitration, as employers often have more experience and resources to navigate the process
effectively.
d. Limited Appeal Options: Unlike court cases, arbitration decisions are typically final,
leaving employees with limited opportunities for appeal.
4. Potential Areas of Improvement:
5
a. Transparency: Implementing measures to ensure transparency in arbitration
proceedings can help address concerns regarding accountability and systemic issues.
b. Voluntary Options: Offering employees the choice between arbitration and litigation
can strike a balance between efficiency and individual rights.
c. Safeguards: Establishing procedural safeguards, such as neutral arbitrator selection
processes and clear guidelines for evidence presentation, can enhance fairness in arbitration.
Mandatory arbitration in workplace discrimination claims presents both advantages and
challenges for employers and employees. While it offers benefits such as confidentiality, cost-
effectiveness, and efficiency for employers, employees may face limitations in discovery,
transparency, and appeal options. By addressing these concerns through greater transparency,
voluntary options, and procedural safeguards, the arbitration process can evolve to better serve
the interests of both parties, fostering a fair and inclusive work environment.
Organizations are made up of many assets, the most valuable of which is its human
capital or employees. Every organization which employees 25 or more individuals is bound by
laws, statutes, and regulations to treat employees fairly and within a set of guidelines and
standards of operation. Most of the regulations governing workplace discrimination are found in
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Employees who feel they have been discriminated
against, treated unfairly, or wrongfully terminated by their employer are able file complaints
through systems of formal and informal dispute resolution. Employers who have intentionally
discriminated against individuals based on the protected characteristics of race, national origin,
sex, religion, disability, or age, have engaged in disparate treatment (Judge & Kammeyer-
6
Mueller, 2020). When an individual brings claims of discrimination against an employer, the
dispute is most often resolved internally. However, the employee has the right to take the case to
an outside agency through an administrative process, which typically starts by filing the
complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). If the EEOC finds that
the complaint has enough evidence, they can potentially take legal action against the employer
for the employee. However, the EEOC also participates in mediation to reach resolution, if
possible. Some employees find that this external mediation, through a neutral party, to be more
fair and helps the claimants feel more satisfied with the outcome. This literature review seeks to
identify the employee’s satisfaction in resolving discrimination claims through mediation and
arbitration.
Literature Review
Mediation
Devinatz (2018) presented an article focused on mediation and conflict resolution,
utilizing a literature review and engaging in a forty-hour mediation training class. Devinatz
posits the importance that mediation and conflict5 resolution has had in the world dating back to
biblical times. The author discussed traits and expectations of a mediator during conflict
resolution typically between an employee and employee. Mediators, Devinatz explains, are to
remain neutral third parties for the dispute and must communicate and facilitate the environment
and discussion for both parties to come to an agreement of terms, without escalating the issue.
The purpose of Devinatz (2018) research is to understand what characteristics and attributes a
mediator must possess, and what can be gained through a mediation training program. Using an
autoethnographic research method, Devinatz (2018) participated in a forty-hour mediation
training program and reported his findings and conclusions. The training incorporated many role-
7
playing scenarios and training for development of interpersonal and communication skills (p.
183). Devinatz (2018) adds that while not every state in the United States (U.S.) has a
requirement for mediators to be trained and certified, those that do typically have requirements
for mediator trainees to pass several role-playing exercises prior to becoming certified (p. 184).
This article directly relates to the literature review topic as it is focused on mediation, the
process, the potential outcomes, and what helps establish a positive mediation experience. The
author gives his personal experiences from attending a mediation training program. Through his
experiences he gives a detailed explanation of how mediators help facilitate the process, as those
involved in the process are to come to an agreement without the mediator deciding who is right
or wrong. The mediator must be able to ask clear and open-ended questions to each party in
order get to the root cause of the conflict. Doing so can help the parties then agree to terms and
be satisfied in those terms. Mediation and conflict resolution are only deemed successful if both
parties are satisfied with the process and results (p.187). Thus, the mediator’s role is extremely
important in determining the success of the mediation process. Devinatz (2018) concludes the
discussion by offering the importance of mediation training for employees in the workplace to be
able to effectively manage their own disputes and to become more empathic listeners and
effective communicators.
Coggburn et al. (2020) also add to the discussion of mediation in their article which
studies the perception of mediation for employees who have filed workplace grievances.
Coggburn et al. (2020) write that using mediation to resolve workplace grievances has numerous
benefits supported by existing research. Some of those benefits are it allows both parties to speak
freely and openly about the situation to reach an understanding, while also not determining one
8
person or the other at fault. Additionally, mediation is less expensive and has a timelier outcome
than formal resolution processes (p. 360).
Coggburn et al. (2020) also examines different mediation styles and whether the type
changes the outcome or satisfaction of employees and employers with the process. The review of
previous research points out that both transformative and facilitative modes of mediation have
been generally more satisfactory for the employer. However, Coggburn et al. (2020) notes that
early available research found that those who filed grievances are more satisfied with the
mediation process more so than those who have gone through arbitration. The paper notes that
this is especially true in cases involving discrimination and disparate treatment as it is more
personal in nature and those who filed often receive an apology and changed behavior.
Yang (2023) conducted research to determine if the laws and regulations within the
United States regarding discrimination would be helpful if enacted in China’s workplace. The
research provides an extensive summary of the laws and regulations as well as resolution
processes. Like other researchers, Yang (2023) reports that litigation and arbitration are the more
expensive and time-consuming options of resolution. Thus, explaining why approximately 70%
of workplace discrimination cases are resolved through some form of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR), such as mediation.
While mediation and ADR are beneficial to the employers and employee, Yang (2023)
argues that the effects mediation and the private nature of the outcomes are no longer acting as
deterrents for negative behavior. Yang (2023) explains with litigation the outcome is decided in
court and proceeding made public, mediation remains an internal process and would not be
discussed outside the firm. Additionally, this makes it difficult to study the overall outcomes of
mediation cases.
9
Arbitration
The arbitration process is used as a form of dispute resolution which differs from
mediation. In mediation the mediator does not have a say in the final resolution or decision. In
arbitration, however, the parties present their evidence to a third party to decide the outcome, of
which is legally binding, and typically involves lawyers on one or both sides. Gough (2021)
presented a research paper on arbitration and litigation outcomes in workplace discrimination
cases. The research specifically examines how mandatory arbitration affects the employee’s
satisfaction with the outcome when controls for characteristics of the individuals (employee,
employer, and attorneys) are in place. Gough (2021) writes that almost half of the private
workforce is bound into a mandatory arbitration agreement by their employer. This agreement
typically establishes that an employee’s who files a grievance must use the company’s arbitration
process for resolution and forfeit the right to sue. Thus, mandatory arbitration is argued to be less
ideal for the employees, even though both sides are to be represented fairly. Gough (2021)
explained that existing research shows that cases that go through mandatory arbitration have less
win rates for the employee and less damages received. Many argue that mandatory arbitration is
not adequately representing the employee as the lawyers are provided by the company. In fact,
through the analysis of thousands of mandatory arbitration cases, Gough (2021) shows that only
19-21 % of the claims were in favor of the employee. By surveying lawyers of these types of
cases, the author and this paper offers direct insight into the success or failures of dispute
resolution. The article offers graphs depicting the different types of discrimination cases, the
percentage of employee win rates as well as the average claim awarded between both litigation
and arbitration cases.
10
Lamare and Lipsky (2019) add to the discussion on mandatory arbitration in their
research paper focused mainly on the securities commission. Their research analyzed the results
of over 3,000 arbitration cases within the securities industry. The authors hypothesized that there
would be differences between discrimination complaints and non-discrimination cases “wherein
discrimination complaints will have higher initial claims, will be more complex, and will be
oriented around distinctive party characteristics (including employee gender and employer size)”
(p. 162). Using existent research, they found that discrimination cases that go to arbitration have
a “win rate” that is 11 percent lower than non-discrimination cases. However, they note that
discrimination cases that are won for the claimant have a higher award amount than non-
discrimination cases. Lamare and Lipsky (2019) also found that discrimination cases that go to
arbitration are likely more egregious in nature, given that many employees opt to not bring their
complaints forward, or make it through the “muddy” employer grievance process. Thus, those
that do go through arbitration are more severe and more likely to ask for higher rewards than
other cases. However, the article explains that due to either arbitrator biases, or the fact that most
discrimination cases whether high-profile or otherwise, are against larger corporations with
strong legal representation, the outcome does not often favor the claimant. Lamare and Lipsky
(2019) conclude that while there are solid arguments both for and against arbitration, it is most
beneficial to the employee when the evidence of discrimination is absolutely indisputable.
Lofaso and Stephens (2022) present research that examines alternatives to the mandatory
arbitration agreements required by many employers today. In their article Lofaso and Stephens
argue that employees should be allowed to pursue legal action over mandatory dispute resolution
to maintain their rights governed within Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Additionally,
they note that many scholars and lawmakers have argued that forced arbitration agreements as
11
terms of employment are “coercive in nature…and dangerously unfair to workers” (p.1018). This
predicament thus forces employees to “give up their civil rights or give up their job” (1018, para
1). The study examines the history of cases that have been forced through mandatory arbitration
and then argued as unjust through higher courts. Historically, Lofaso and Stephens (2022) report
that the agreements have been binding, given that courts prefer dispute cases to go through
arbitration rather than litigation, and the arbitrators are neutral parties.
Lofaso and Stephens (2022) then conducted research on the peer-advocacy internal
grievance process (like mediation) at the Polaroid Corporation. What they discovered is that
through this process, many cases did not move to arbitration as “employees seemed happy that
their disputes were heard and their concerns received a fair hearing, regardless of the outcome”
(p. 1057, para 2). Thus, making a case for mediation and identifying this process as a positive
alternative to arbitration or litigation for most employees.
Lamare (2020) adds to this discussion of arbitration with their research on the effects of
attorney representation on employment arbitration outcomes. Lamare examined the outcomes of
3,000 arbitration cases in this study, similar to another of his studies (See Lamare and Lipsky,
2019). The evidence presented shows that employees are seven times more likely to win in
arbitration when the employer does not have representation or an agent. Thus, the outcome for
employees going through arbitration will only be more beneficial if they have legal
representation and the employer does not.
Gough and Colvin (2020) conducted a study to identify the different characteristics found
in employment arbitrators and how those characteristics affect the outcome of employee
arbitration cases. In one finding, Gough and Colvin (2020) write that arbitrators tend to not be in
favor for the plaintiff when the employers are determined to have internal dispute resolution
12
processes and formalized standards in place to protect against discrimination. Thus, the article
explains that courts or arbitrators might argue that employers with affirmative action plans in
place would not be discriminating, as they are abiding by the Equal Employment Opportunity
regulations. Additionally, the researchers hypothesize that given internal resolution processes are
not required by law, arbitrators will look favorably upon employers for having such a process
and negatively on the employee for using arbitration. Their study then used an interview and
survey technique to gather data from 274 arbitrators. One of their findings which adds to the
discussion of outcome was that half of the arbitrators had worked as some type of defense
counsel for the employer, leading to questioning the neutrality of their decision making (p. 493).
Thus, concluding that at a minimum, reform of the arbitration process will benefit employees and
the outcome of their cases.
Conclusions, Recommendations, and Areas for Further Study
Mediation and Arbitration have been used within the workplace for decades as a means of
conflict or alternative dispute resolution and have been preferred to cases going through
litigation. Mediation and Arbitration have both pros and cons for those on either side of the
claims process. This literature review sought to understand through existent research whether the
resolution outcomes for mediation and arbitration in discrimination complaints were mostly
positive or negative for the employee. While most researchers agree that the empirical evidence
existing studies are not abundant for this topic due to the private nature of most cases,
conclusions can be drawn in some areas.
In terms of discrimination cases, Coggburn (2020) pointed out that employees were
found to be mostly satisfied with the outcome of mediation cases, due to the open discussion of
the forum. This allowed both sides to speak freely on their points without the stricter guidelines
13
of arbitration. Mediation allows for the employee to address the grievance and how the behavior
has affected them and allows for the employer to apologize and right whatever wrong was
committed. This potentially allows for an improved workplace experience or perception of the
organization for the employee.
While arbitration can yield a monetary reward to the employee, most of the evidence and
research concludes that arguing a case for discrimination through arbitration is difficult.
Lamara and Lipsky (2019) write that arbitrators may require a “higher clear and convincing
evidence standard in their decision making” for cases involving sexual harassment or other cases
and require a ”preponderance of evidence” (p.177). This area requires more research to
understand the standards of proof required by arbitrators for discrimination cases as compared to
non-discrimination claims (Lamara & Lipsky, 2019, p 177).
Resources
Avgar, A. C. (2021). Relational exchange in non-union firms: A configurational framework for
workplace dispute resolution and voice. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 74(3),
607–636. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793921989615
Ariel Avgar (2021), an Associate Professor and Associate Dean for Outreach at the
Industrial and Labor Relations School at Cornell University, conducts a study on
workplace dispute settlement. The paper claims that significant research has been
conducted on the growing utilization of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in work
interactions over the past four decades. Additionally, it examines the current literature on
14
the evolution of conflict-management systems. The study provides robust evidence to
support the notion that companies exhibit significant variation in their adoption of
dispute-resolution strategies. Avgar (2021) asserts that beginning in the late 1970s, firms
had a growing trend to choose private resolution approaches rather than depending on
unions and official institutions to resolve issues. This article examines the strategies
employed by non-union businesses, including mediation, facilitation, and conflict
coaching, as well as rights-based approaches like arbitration, peer-review panels, and
fact-finding.
The study applies to the literature review as it addresses the dispute-resolution
procedures or strategies workers and management use to discuss, handle, and resolve
conflicts, disagreements, and disputes. These practices are crucial in shaping workplace
interactions' fundamental and essential features. They play a critical role in employee
satisfaction in mediation and arbitration. Avgar (2021) examines integrating a company's
conflict resolution approach with a platform that facilitates employee expression of
viewpoints. This will be utilized in the literature review article to comprehend corporate
and individual outcomes.
Coggburn, J. D., Daley, D. M., Jameson, J. K., & Berry-James, R. M. (2020). Assessing the six-
factor model of organizational justice in the context of workplace mediation. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), 355–383.
https://doi.org/10.1177
/0734371X18816758
Coggburn et al. (2020) examine mediation as a viable approach for resolving disputes as
an alternative to traditional litigation. Their discussion revolves around the definition of
15
mediation and its advantages for workers compared to alternative dispute resolution
procedures such as arbitration and litigation. The authors define mediation as a
transparent platform for employees to engage in dialogue and reach a mutually agreeable
solution while serving as a cost-effective alternative for employers. The study also
examines the benefits of different mediation strategies for both employers and labor.
Coggburn et al. (2020) discuss the perspective of employees who have lodged
workplace grievances regarding their perception of mediation. The study centers on the
concept of organizational justice and examines how the outcomes of alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) can impact employees' perception of fairness and their professional
rapport with their employer, which is vital to the literature review topic.
The study's authors possess comprehensive knowledge and expertise in public
administration and human relations. Jerrell Coggburn is a professor specializing in public
administration at North Carolina State University, specifically within the School of Public
and International Affairs. Dennis Daley, who holds a Doctor of Philosophy degree,
currently holds a chair in public administration at North Carolina State University under
the School of Public and International Affairs. Jessica Jameson, a North Carolina State
University communication professor, specializes in researching organizational conflict,
mediation, and dispute resolution. RaJade M. Berry-James primarily focuses on
researching social fairness and is an assistant professor of public management at North
Carolina State University.
Colvin, A. J. S., & Gough, M. D. (2023). Mandatory employment arbitration. Annual Review of
Law and Social Science, 19(1), 131-144. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-
120822-112007
16
Encarnacion, E. (2020). Discrimination, mandatory arbitration, and courts. The Georgetown Law
Journal, 108(4), 855-904. https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A624028206
/GBIB?u=vic_liberty&sid=summon&xid=041d1855
Encarnacion (2020) is an Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Texas School of
Law. The article from Encarnacion (2020) adds to the ongoing discussion on job
discrimination and the difficulties related to mandatory arbitration. The paper offers
another viewpoint on the outcomes of arbitration in workplace discrimination cases.
According to Encarnacion (2020), eradicating discrimination requires strengthening those
subjected to injustice to express their rights as equal members of society. Fair treatment
of individuals is irrespective of their associations and is crucial for victims to legally seek
validation of their rights from the court. Public officials must openly support and confirm
the equitable treatment of individuals. According to Encarnacion (2020), achieving this
goal is not possible through a procedure of private and confidential arbitration. The
article asserts that to restore a sense of equity for a victim of discrimination, it is
imperative for the corporation to publicly recognize its transgressions. Thus, the
corporation's ability to conceal reprehensible behavior and enforce mandatory private
arbitration should be eliminated.
Gough, M. (2018). How do organizational environments and mandatory arbitration shape
employment attorney case selection? Evidence from an experimental vignette. Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 57(4): 541–67. https://doi.org/10.1111
/irel.12217
17
Mandatory arbitration agreements significantly transform the legal environment in which
employment lawyers work. Since the Supreme Court's ruling, mandatory arbitration
clauses have been a standard component of employment agreements, job applications,
and employee handbooks. The research from Gough (2018) suggests that a mandatory
arbitration clause reduces the appeal of a legal claim for lawyers and consequently
restricts the legal accountability of employers and the rights of employees according to
anti-discrimination laws. Mandatory arbitration hinders employees from obtaining legal
counsel and pursuing legal recourse to protect their rights, leading to an inequitable
position. In addition, despite their seeming commitment to being non-discriminatory,
several equal opportunity programs may only allow the detection of discrimination if they
are adequately applied. All research findings add to the discussion of employee
satisfaction in mediation and arbitration outcomes.
Mark Gough is an Assistant Professor at Pennsylvania State University (PSU),
employed in the School of Labor and Employment Relations. However, data collection
for the research was supported through a grant from the Robert L. Habush Endowment of
the American Association for Justice to Cornell University.
Lipsky, D. B., Avgar, A. C., & Lamare, J. R. (2020). Organizational conflict resolution and
strategic choice: Evidence from a survey of Fortune 1000 firms. ILR Review, 73(2), 431-
455. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919870169
Lipsky et al. (2020) write that an evident transformation in the design and structure of US
businesses in the last four decades is the growing use of third-party dispute resolution
procedures to address workplace problems. Firms started using alternative dispute
resolution (ADR) methods in the 1970s to reduce employment conflicts and dispute
18
expenses. Lipsky et al. (2020) investigate the strategic reasons organizations adopt
alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Lipsky et al. (2020) argue that the choice between
mediation and arbitration for resolving workplace conflicts is influenced by an
organization's strategic approach to alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and its level of
commitment to these procedures. This article dives into interest-based versus rights-based
procedures and explains each, allowing for further understanding of the processes. The
article addresses the idea that firms are becoming more cognizant of the expenses
associated with staff turnover and the advantages of maintaining skilled personnel. As a
result, firms are actively exploring more effective dispute-resolution approaches to foster
positive employee relations instead of damaging them.
Each of the authors has authored many articles and conducted studies on
employee relations and dispute resolution. David B. Lipsky holds the position of Anne
Evans Estabrook Professor of Dispute Resolution (Emeritus) at the ILR School, Cornell
University, where Ariel C. Avgar also holds the position of Associate Professor. J. Ryan is
an Associate Professor in the School of Labor and Employment Relations at the
University of Illinois.
Malatesta, D., Amsler, L. B., & Scott, S. F. (2020). Disputant experience and preferences for
mediated or adjudicated processes in administrative agencies: The occupational safety
and health review commission settlement part program. Industrial & Labor Relations
Review, 73(2), 552-570. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793919882928
Malatesta et al. (2020) conducted a study examining the preferences of disputants about
the use of mediation or adjudication in resolving disputes. The findings indicate that
individuals involved in disputes tend to adjudicate proceedings when they need more
19
expertise in previous disputes. Conversely, studies conducted with seasoned persons have
discovered specific indicators of a preference for facilitation and resolution. However,
the study concludes that individuals with greater familiarity with either process generally
prefer mediation over adjudication. Moreover, the results show that individuals who
perceive a fair and equitable process are more inclined to favor mediation over
adjudication. The study and outcomes are significant and directly related to the central
issue of the suggested literature review. They provide essential information regarding
cases where more satisfaction is achieved in either procedure.
Deanna Malatesta holds the position of Associate Professor at Indiana
University's O'Neill School of Public and Environmental Affairs. Lisa Blomgren Amsler
holds the prominent Keller Runden Professorship at Indiana University's O'Neill School
of Public and Environmental Affairs. At the time of publication, Susanna Foxworthy
Scott was pursuing a doctoral degree at Indiana University–Purdue University
Indianapolis.
McDermott, E. & Obar, R. (2023). Online mediation participant experience at the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission – Do the data herald the creative destruction of in-
person dispute resolution? Advances in Industrial & Labor Relations, 27, 101-110.
https://doi.org/10.1108/S0742-618620230000027006
According to McDermott and Obar (2023), the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) was forced to transition its highly respected mediation program
from in-person mediation (IPM) to online video mediation (OVM) because of the
epidemic. This research aimed to compare the effectiveness of OVM and IPM in
resolving conflicts. The findings show that worries about the digital divide are unfounded
20
and that online dispute resolution unquestionably increases the availability of legal
remedies. They claim that whether or not a mechanism for resolving conflicts in
cyberspace is regarded as fair and accepted by all parties is crucial to the system's
success. The study is essential to the literature review because it adds complexity to the
topic of employee satisfaction with resolution results or, at the very least, highlights an
area for additional attention.
Pham, N. D., & Donovan, M. (2021). an empirical assessment of employment arbitration. The
Journal of Law, Economics & Policy, 16(1), 45. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4077421
Rouméas, É. (2020). Religious diversity in the workplace: The case for alternative dispute
resolution. Political Studies, 68(1), 207–223. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032321719839316
Rouméas (2020) teaches at the University of Oxford's Department of Politics and International
Relations as a Postdoctoral Research Associate in political theory in the Department of Politics
and International Relations. The article from Rouméas (2020) discusses Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) to facilitate religious freedom in the workplace. It is argued in this article that
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a valuable method for resolving religious disputes
because it allows for individualized conclusions to be made that consider each party's diverse
circumstances. The early resolution of an employment dispute through mediation may benefit
both parties, but it may come at the expense of workers' rights. Despite these drawbacks, the
article advocates using ADR to resolve work disagreements stemming from religious beliefs. The
argument asserts that ADR provides a novel approach to guaranteeing procedural fairness partly
because of its capacity to render individualized decisions. Concurrently, the article argues to
dispel the myth that ADR is superior because it is a "quick and cheap" resolution. Rouméas
21
(2020) says that swiftness is not inherently indicative of an improved justice system, and a more
extended procedure allows for the comprehensive collection of information and allows parties to
approach the disputed topic with more information and more rational viewpoints. Each point
argued by Rouméas (2020) directly relates to the main topic of the proposed literature review.
The article offers valuable perspectives on ADR, irrespective of any additional international
affiliation
Schwartz, D. S. (2009). Mandatory arbitration and fairness. The Notre Dame Law Review, 84(3),
1247-1341 https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A199537356/LT?u=vic_liberty&sid
=summon&xid=66544e3b
-------------------------------------------------------
Coggburn, J. D., Daley, D. M., Jameson, J. K., & Berry-James, R. M. (2020). Assessing the six-
factor model of organizational justice in the context of workplace mediation. Review of
Public Personnel Administration, 40(3), 355-383. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0734371X18816758
Devinatz, V. G. (2018). What makes a good mediator? Insights from a mediation training
program participant. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 30(3), 181-201.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-018-9315-y
Judge, T. A., & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2020). Staffing Organizations (10th ed.). Burr Ridge,
IL. McGraw Hill
Gough, M. (2021). A tale of two forums: Employment discrimination outcomes in arbitration and
litigation. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 74(4), 875-897. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0019793920915876
22
Gough, M. D., & Colvin, A. J. S. (2020). Decision-maker and context effects in employment
arbitration. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 73(2), 479-497. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0019793919886578
Lamare, J. R., & Lipsky, D. B. (2019). Resolving discrimination complaints in employment
arbitration: An analysis of the experience in the securities industry. Industrial & Labor
Relations Review, 72(1), 158-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0019793917747520
Lamare, J. R. (2020). The devil is in the details: Attorney effects on employment arbitration
outcomes. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 73(2), 456-478. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0019793919877404
Lofaso, A. M., & Stephens, A. M. (2022). Alternatives to mainstream alternative dispute
resolution: Eliminating forced arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.
Utah Law Review, 2022(5), 1015-1079. https://web.s.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/
pdfviewer?vid=0&sid=4637366a-de85-4933-8ca5-fb18fba1c78c%40redis
Yang, H. (2023). Development phases of U.S. employment anti-discrimination law and
reflections on its dilemmas from the perspective of China. Labor History, 64(1), 106-122.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0023656X.2023.2182436
