Some assume mediation is only suited for disputes such as child custody, small claims, and neighbor-to-neighbor disagreements. In fact, mediation is commonly used in most major disputes when the parties are ready to settle.

One example is the NFL player concussion case: Chronic traumatic encephalopathy is a degenerative brain disease found in athletes and others who experienced repetitive concussions. In 2011, seven players filed a federal lawsuit against the NFL. By 2013, more than 4,500 former players had filed lawsuits all contending they had experienced repeated concussions throughout their careers. Attorneys for the players alleged the NFL was aware of the risks and deliberately concealed them from players. The NFL responded that it had issued warnings based on available medical knowledge at the time. The NFL also contended that player safety is governed by collective bargaining agreements between the league and the players.

The federal judge overseeing the cases ordered attorneys for the players and the NFL to meet with Layn Phillips, a retired federal judge, as the mediator in the case, who spent two months going back and forth between the parties.

Many of the players were dealing with health concerns and might have preferred a settlement over years of litigation with no guarantee of the outcome. While the NFL may have felt less financial pressure, it may have wanted to avoid the discovery process, which could have revealed information damaging to the league’s reputation.

A settlement was reached. The NFL agreed to contribute $765 million for medical help to more than 18,000 former players and contribute an additional $10 million to fund brain injury research and safety and education programs.

The mediation process worked in this case and can easily be applied to similar ones as well. However, parties typically move to mediation only after having begun the process of litigation.

—————————————————————————————-

Fred Jandt is the author of HOW TO SURVIVE A MEDIATION, available wherever books are sold.

Some would say mediation can be used for any kind of dispute. Others are more cautious and say it’s not always appropriate.

I have concerns about extreme imbalances of power between parties that mediators are not able to address. This typically arises in family mediation when domestic violence or abuse has occurred. When the victim is threatened, even by being in the same room as the offender, the victim cannot be expected to make decisions in their best interest. For this reason, some contend that cases of domestic violence and abuse should never be mediated. The same can be said for bullying. I understand how the victim can feel threatened by being in the presence of the offender. However, some victims after careful preparation for the experience can find it empowering.

There are also concerns about the power imbalance in disputes between management and employees. It is understandable an employee may feel threatened by the dispute itself, as well as by agreeing to mediation. Workplace mediators can adapt the process to deal with the imbalance of power. The same imbalance of power occurs in parent–teen mediations, but, again, the mediator can adapt the process to deal with that issue.

Another situation I question is whether or not mediation is appropriate when a person refuses to attend the sessions and is only willing to send a representative with no power to settle. As a negotiating tactic, this creates an imbalance of power. I will not conduct a mediation unless all parties present have the authority to resolve the problems at hand.

Finally, mediation cannot be used to establish major policy precedents with application beyond the parties participating. Any agreement should apply only to those in the meditation. The court system is the appropriate venue for public policy change.

——————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Fred Jandt is the author of HOW TO SURVIVE A MEDIATION available wherever books are sold.