Find Mediators Near You:

Grievance Procedures and Mediation Policy Goals

Just Court ADR by Susan M. Yates,Jennifer Shack, Heather Scheiwe Kulp, and Jessica Glowinski.

Parties to court mediation in Florida have the opportunity to submit their complaints regarding a mediator to a robust grievance process. The structure includes four stages: committee review to determine whether a complaint is facially sufficient; a preliminary review of rules that may have been violated and the mediator’s response to the complaint, which are used to determine probable cause; a meeting between mediator and complainant; and a formal hearing. In “Mediator Ethical Breaches: Implications for Public Policy” (Penn State Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation, Vol. 6, p. 107 (2014)), Sharon Press examines this grievance process and finds that the burden of proof required at the formal hearing stage has the potential to undermine the policy goals of mediation programs.

Press argues that a grievance process should support the policy goals of court mediation, specifically efficient resolution of cases and ensuring the quality of the resolution (which she believes depends upon upholding mediation’s underlying values of self-determination, impartiality and confidentiality). To support the goal of ensuring the quality of the resolution, the grievance process needs to provide access to complainants and due process to the mediators, and provide an opportunity for rehabilitation to the mediator. Press argues that rehabilitation allows mediators to learn from their mistakes and provide better service in the future. This, in turn, should enhance the quality of resolution.

Most grievance cases achieved these objectives, according to Press, because they were resolved early. Of the 77 complaints filed between 2000 and 2009, only four proceeded to a formal hearing. The others were withdrawn, dismissed or resolved short of the hearing. Eleven of those cases that weren’t withdrawn or dismissed at the first review led to sanctions being imposed on and accepted by the mediators. Press sees the early disposition of complaints as a positive thing, as this supports the public policy goals for the grievance process – particularly access, efficiency, due process and rehabilitation– which in turn support the policy goals of court mediation.

Press looks more deeply into the four cases that went to hearing to see if they support the policy goals of court mediation. She finds that the burden of proof is too high to accomplish this. The Supreme Court imposed a “clear and convincing evidence” standard that is best used for objective behaviors. If the mediator argues, for example, that a statement that the complainant construed as racist was really just said to break the ice, the court can’t find “clear and convincing evidence” of bias because there is no evidence of actual bias. However, the nature of mediation is such that the behaviors that uphold the underlying values of mediation are subjective in nature – that is, perception is everything. By the values of mediation, it doesn’t matter if the mediator thought that what she said was racist. The fact that the party reasonably could have felt the statement was racist is what is important.

Press concludes: “Because of the difficulty in meeting the burden of proof, complaints which raise important issues around self-determination, demeanor, coercion, and appropriateness of mediation, end up being dismissed and only those ‘objective’ complaints survive.” She also argues that the mediators don’t learn from a formal hearing process in which subjective complaints can’t be sustained. They enter the process believing they did nothing wrong and that belief is supported by the process. Thus, the policy goal of rehabilitation is not achieved for cases that go to a formal hearing, a goal that is achieved when resolution is achieved earlier in the process. Press recommends that the burden of proof for formal hearings be changed to the preponderance of the evidence for those cases in which decertification is not being pursued. This would permit sanctions to be imposed, thus effectuating rehabilitation.


Jennifer Shack

Jennifer Shack is Director of Research at Resolution Systems Institute (RSI), a Chicago-based nonprofit working to improve access to justice through court alternative dispute resolution (ADR). Jennifer, who has been with RSI since 1999, is one of the foremost court ADR researchers in the field. She focuses on conducting complex… MORE >

Featured Mediators

View all

Read these next


How Do You Handle a Pathological Liar at Work?

Have you ever worked with someone who talked about experiences that seemed far-fetched, but you couldn't pin down what was off?  Does that person seem to always have a story...

By Kathleen Kauth

Pretrial Risk Assessment

Nearly everyone both within and outside of the legal profession has heard of bail reform.  Couched typically as “America’s cash bail system,” it has been branded as evil and in desperate...

By Jeffrey Clayton

Dealing With Worldviews In Interpersonal Conflict

Understanding worldviews is as elusive as understanding human nature. It is a reality based on unseen dimensions, unimagined proportions, and rooted in unacknowledged patterns of thought. Dealing with worldviews at...

By Anne Giacalone DiDomenico