I’m often asked to name some outstanding mediators. Personally, I think the job description of a mediator should not include their reputation because in my view mediators should be in the background. If they become personalities, it could adversely affect their effectiveness.

There are, however, some well-known people in other fields who have acted as mediators in critical disputes. One such person I consider a mediation hero is Jimmy Carter. President Carter was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for, “his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development,” (The Carter Center, 2015).

President Carter sent U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance with handwritten notes inviting Manachem Begin, then Prime Minister of Israel, and Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, to meet at the Camp David presidential country retreat. The rural setting and separate cabins made the site an ideal venue for extended private and joint meetings.

President Carter utilized several mediation skills while at Camp David:

Caucus: After a joint meeting that was much less than cordial, President Carter relied only on individual meetings with the parties. Sadat and Begin didn’t meet again, except in a social context.

Listening and Issue Identification: President Carter may have made the first use of what has been called the single negotiating text method. After his individual meetings, President Carter developed a draft document, which the negotiating parties then rewrote through a back-and-forth critiquing process. This document went through 18 drafts as the parties made edits.

West Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement: A mediator may remind the disputants of the consequences of not settling. At Camp David, President Carter led an excursion to the Gettysburg battlefield. As a military cadet, Sadat had studied the battle and knew its history. While Begin was unfamiliar with the battle, he did recite Lincoln’s Gettysburg address from memory. Some feel that the cemetery is a visual reminder of the horror of war and may have encouraged the parties to consider the possible consequences of not reaching any agreement.

Deadline: By the end of the 10th day, there was still no firm agreement on anything. Finally, President Carter said to the parties, “I have to go back to Washington on Sunday. Either we get something by Sunday, or it’s a failure.”

Mediator Personal Characteristics: When Sadat became frustrated and decided to withdraw from the negotiations and leave Camp David without any agreement. President Carter went alone to Sadat’s cabin and said that if he left Camp David, “our friendship was severed forever.” Sadat walked to the corner of the room, came back, and said, “I’m staying.” Then, when Begin had decided to withdraw, President Carter brought Begin a group photograph inscribed to each of Begin’s grandchildren signed by Carter, Sadat and Begin. Carter knew the impact that photograph would have on Begin. Recognizing what the negotiations would mean to his and future generations of grandchildren, Begin returned to the negotiatiing table.

Mediator’s Attitude: The mediator always believes an agreement is possible. President Carter reviewed the entire draft framework, listing all the common positions and detailing the few remaining sticking points. With this review, Carter was able to get Begin to remove a final roadblock.

After an agreement had been reached, President Carter addressed Congress on the accords with Sadat and Begin in the audience. On the way to the Capitol, President Carter added to his remarks, “Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called the children of God.”

Sexual harassment in the workplace or elsewhere is by no means a new occurrence. The #MeToo movement and the recent Harvey Weinstein trial have brought it long overdue public attention.

Before #MeToo, there was some use of mediation in sexual harassment cases. Typically, those who did seek redress employed attorneys who issued a demand letter to the employer after which the employer conducted an investigation. Mediation in those cases typically focused on liability and the amount of an award. Confidentiality was required and the complainant’s demand for discipline or termination of the harasser was rare.

The #MeToo movement has brought several important changes. More women have been encouraged to come forward with complaints. Employers’ response overall has changed. Previously, employers relied on their own HR departments or counsel to investigate the complaint, but today it is more likely that employers use external third-party neutrals to perform an investigation.

Demands made by victims has changed as well. Employers report that victims are more likely to make greater demands, including discipline and termination of the harasser. Additionally, women no longer fear going public with allegations making non-disclosure agreements less relevant. Employers may have become more concerned about confidentiality to protect their image while victims are more willing to make their cases public. These changes have revised the content of those complaints that do go to mediation.

A complicating factor is a 2017 federal tax law that employers cannot deduct any money spent on settling or litigating sexual harassment claims. Thus sexual harassment is treated differently from gender, race, age, national origin and disability claims. The implications of this change is yet to be clear.

Mediation for sexual harassment presents many unique challenges. In the biggest ever sexual harassment case to be mediated, some 80 women entered into mediation talks with Harvey Weinstein’s attorneys, demanding $100 million for a victim’s fund. Weinstein’s insurers are not willing to pay anything near that amount. While the case has certainly brought increased public awareness, the victims face enormous obstacles for any compensation for suffering and damages to their careers.

The function of mediation in sexual harassment cases has definitely changed as has public awareness. The fundamental issue, though, is whether or not the workplace itself has actually changed.