Sexual and other misconduct is a violation of trust and power. It affects not only individuals, but also their families and institutions. Litigation of misconduct often creates an adversarial relationship which can confuse or prolong the struggle for justice. By creating an alternative process, mediation provides a safe, confidential, consensual forum in which claims can be resolved. Mediation is a process of principled, assisted negotiation. The mediator is a impartial professional, experienced in the issues and dynamics of abuse and other misconduct. Mediation does not necessarily result in reconciliation, but does promote individual healing, and does preserve the integrity of the institution and facilitates its mission.
The Mediation process includes individual sessions with the complaining party and with key participants from the institution; structuring and facilitation of joint sessions. Specific steps in the mediation process are designed to allow all parties to explore their experiences and to provide opportunity to collaboratively create a settlement consistent with Transformative Justice.
Mediation sessions are typically conducted for a fixed, per diem fee, which includes scheduling and preparation time. Individual sessions and any follow-up services are billed at an hourly rate. Reasonable travel and related expenses will be reimbursed.
By consent of the parties, all aspects of a mediation are private and confidential. Neither the statements, observations, or impressions of the mediators, or any of their notes or work product, nor any statements or documents of the parties can be used in any subsequent legal proceeding.
A 55 year old male executive was accused of sexually harrassing a female employee. He was dismissed without investigation of the complaint, and given 10 months' severance pay. He was negatively affected by the accusations and his subsequent dismissal, and became markedly alienated from the community of colleagues and friends which had been his base during his thirty year career. He was severely anxious and depressed and was unable to attend meetings with these individuals, although his new employment required it. He claimed innocence, and requested mediation between himself and representatives of the board by whom he had previously been employed.
I approached the president of the board, who agreed to the mediation and agreed to bring the vice-president and the treasurer with him. Both parties agreed that reversal of the dismissal would not be an outcome of the mediation, but that truth-telling and resolution of the alienation would be appropriate outcomes. Both parties hoped that the fired individual could resume attendance at required meetings.
The mediation involved two hours' preparation for each party, and one three hour mediation session. The mediation involved parties' sequential narration of events, summarizing the complaints againsteach other and sharing the personal impact, proposal of accomodation which might resolve the conflict, and agreement. One-hour follow-up afterward with each party demonstrated compliance with the agreed terms.
Two parties, a male and female who had been dating, accused each other of several incidents of physical violence. There were no witnesses to any of these alleged events, so police declined to intervene. The male approached me, requesting mediation to end ongoing animosity and to satisfactorily end the relationship.
Three hours preparation with each party occurred. I then wrote a brief summary of the events and of my impressions of the conflict, with recommendations for a mediation process. Each party agreed. Mediation involved two two-hour sessions with both parties present, during which they discussed my report and recommendations. Each was able to non-defensively acknowledge their own contribution to the conflict. Each party agreed to cease all ongoing contact and animosity. One-hour follow-up with each party included information-giving, discussion of forgiveness, and referral for individual counselling.
A dispute arose regarding the guardianship and residence of a seven year-old child, who had been the recipient of a substantial trust fund. The disputants were the child's parents and the child's grandparents. The elderly grandparents had been custodians of the child since the age of one year. The parties each accused the other of selfish motives, and of neglecting the best interests of the child. Extended family members had also become involved as advocates for each party.
Initial intervention consisted of individual interviews of the parents, the child and the grandparents. This was followed by a written summary of the factors contributing to the dispute, and recommendations for resolution. Extended family members agreed to permit the primary parties to resolve the dispute. Face-to-face mediation did not occur, but my continuing role was as a mediatory communicator between the parties. This resulted in consensual agreement that the child would reside with the parents. This was later affirmed by the Court, who awarded guardianship to the parents and liberal visitation to the grandparents. Six-month telephone follow-up demonstrated successful compliance with the agreement and reasonably amiable relations among the parties.
A 35 year old male and a 27 year-old female, employees of the same organization, began a sexual affair which resulted in the birth of a child. After the break-up of the relationship, the female accused the male of having used his positional power to initiate the affair and to maintain control over her. The male, then counter-accused the female of somewhat identical dynamics. The employment setting became embroiled and somewhat poisoned by this ongoing dispute. Internal attempts to resolve it resulted in increased hostility. Both parties were dismissed by the employer with fairly liberal severance packages.
The male then accused the employer of wrongful dismissal. The employer hired an independent investigator who concluded that the dismissal was processed fairly and had been just. The male former employee was unable to accept this conclusion, however, and continued to pursue the president of the employment group, seeking apology.
The president approached me with a request to attempt mediation with the disgruntled former employee. The former employee agreed to the proposal. Both parties agreed that re-employment was not a possible outcome of mediation, but that cessation of ongoing hostility was possible.
Initial intervention involved fact-finding interviews with both parties, and review of the files of the employer and the complaint investigator. One two-hour mediation session between the former employee and the president included summary narration of events, discussion of the emotional and interpretive impact of these events on the individuals and on the employment group. After this somewhat cathartic discussion, it was evident to both parties that simple discontinuation of the relationship and cessation of hostility was the only possible resolution. Each party signed an agreement to this effect. One-hour follow-up sessions with each individual assisted them to accept this outcome. Four-month telephone follow-up demonstrated reasonable compliance with the agreement.
Two parties, a male and female who had been dating, accused each other of several incidents of physical violence. There were no witnesses to any of these alleged events, so police declined to intervene. The male approached me, requesting mediation to end ongoing animosity and to satisfactorily end the relationship.
Three hours preparation with each party occurred. I then wrote a brief summary of the events and of my impressions of the conflict, with recommendations for a mediation process. Each party agreed. Mediation involved two two-hour sessions with both parties present, during which they discussed my report and recommendations. Each was able to non-defensively acknowledge their own contribution to the conflict. Each party agreed to cease all ongoing contact and animosity. One-hour follow-up with each party included information-giving, discussion of forgiveness, and referral for individual counselling.
A 28 year old single mother was employed in a health care facility as an executive assistant. The atmosphere in this office was highly charged with adversarial interactions, demands to take sides and defend ones allies. She did not become involved in these relationships, saying often, "I just want to do my job". She began to be interpersonally isolated, then resented, then was asked to accomplish more responsibilities than she could handle. She became depressed, and requested and was granted a sick leave of absence.
When she returned to work four weeks later, other staff resented her even more, and began to tell her that she was "the weak link", etc. After one week back in the office, she requested an additional four weeks leave of absence. The executive director of the facility granted her application, but requested mediation between this individual and the other staff prior to her return to work.
Fact-finding involved two interviews with the affected individual, one interview with the executive director, and brief individual contact with most of the staff members. A circle method of mediation was suggested. This was begun with a summary of the facts as collected by the mediator, and information was given about the mediation intent and process. Staff conceded the factual recitation and consented to circle exploration and disclosure.
Two two-hour sharing circles resulted. The first focussed on expression of perception and feelings about the "other", and explanation of behaviour patterns, and this resulted in apparently increased understanding and insight. The second focussed on working through the exploration of possible actions which would move the group toward more tolerance of individual differences and workstyles, and development of a more cooperative work atmosphere. Two further individual sessions occurred with the affected worker, which revealed a fairly rapid improvement in work environment and supportiveness. She was able to sustain her return to work on the second attempt.
A 17 year old high school student and his favourite teacher became involved in an acrimonious interchange when the teacher refused the student's request for reference in applying for university admission. This interchange lasted several hours long and many highly provocative things were said by both parties. When the student reported this to his parents, they approached the principal of the school, who took the "side" of the teacher against the student. The conflict escalated to include several other parties until the primary parties, the student and the teacher, requested private mediation to attempt to resolve the issue. The student's parents consented to the mediation, but did not want to be directly involved.
Mediation consisted of one interview with both parties present to learn background and explain the mediation process, commitments and possible outcomes. Each party was given an individual hour with the mediator for relationship building. Joint mediation was two hours in length, and focussed on the acrimonious argument, prior relationship, and the parties' hopes for renewed relationship. Agreement was reached which supported mutual apology, a trust re-establishment exercise, the teacher wrote a positive reference letter, and each party agreed to speak with involved community persons respectively. Six week follow-up with the primary parties, and with the parents and the principal, indicated good resolution.
The pastor of a church became involved personally in an argument with a parishioner about allocation of funds within the church. This conflict became public at a congregational meeting. The church board approached me with a request to assess the potential for mediation with the pastor and parishioner.
I first met with each of the parties to ascertain their understanding of the conflict, and willingness for mediated settlement of the dispute. I also met with a selected small group of church board members. Having found each primary party willing and capable of engaging in a respectful manner, and having obtained the support of the board, we held three hour-long mediation sessions spread over several weeks' time, between the pastor and parishioner. Sessions explored previous personal relationship for factors which triggered the conflict, the events of the private and public disputes, the personal and congregational impact, and possible avenues for resolution and amelioration. Agreement was reached which involved a joint apology to the congregation, written and spoken, and pledges to continue respectful behaviour publicly and privately. Compliance was ensured at three month follow-up contact.
The new supervisor of a social services employment group with intense crisis-laden history, quickly gained a negative reputation among workers for being out of touch, arbitrary, showing favouritism, and using race to gain power. Ten employees filed a detailed complaint with the human resources department. I was then contracted as an independent mediator to assist with investigation of the complaint and to attempt resolution without dismissal of any employee.
Fact-finding interviews with individual parties occurred. While the supervisor did not deny the accusations outright, there was considerable bafflement about employee interpretation of events and supervisor behaviours. The supervisor was willing to engage in a dialogical process. The employee circle maintained the complaints, but were willing (in varying degrees) to acknowledge the potential for prejudice and resentment having affected perception of the supervisor. Employees were willing to engage in dialogue with the supervisor as a group, but not individually.
Three mediation circles were held with all employees and the supervisor present. Using a sequential method with directed questions, each participant discussed perceptions of the precipitating events, personally complicating factors, behavioural and employment expectations, and reestablishment of the cooperative relationships. Agreement was signed by all parties which detailed respectful relationships. This was then given to the human resources department for monitoring and enforcement.