EEOC: Fewer Employees Finish ADR Counseling

Mr. Mahoney was quoted extensively in the August 15, 2007 issue of the CyberFEDS online newsletter in an article by Melissa Turley of CyberFEDS Washington Bureau entitled EEOC: Fewer Employees Finish ADR Counseling.

Mr. Mahoney's quoted points included that ADR in the informal stage of an EEO complaint may be "too lengthy and costly an option for federal employees," and that "agencies aren't doing enough for employees with EEO complaints. The article describes the EEOC's recent report stating that the number of completed alternative dispute resolution EEO counselings has steadily declined since 2002. Mr. Mahoney was further quoted in the article as saying that the decline in completed informal EEO counselings "supports my anecdotal theory that... agency EEO offices and their counselors are actively and apparently successfully discouraging complainants from proceeding with their EEO complaints, which is expressly unlawful under the EEOC's applicable Management Directive 110." Mr. Mahoney is further attributed in the article with agreeing that ADR at the formal EEO complaint stage "can help reduce litigation costs and sends a positive message about the agency's commitment to resolving disputes." Finally, in the article, Mr. Mahoney is quoted as stating the following:

"the longer it takes the parties to start settlement negotiations, the more expensive the case becomes given the increased attorney's fees and expenses. It seems that, once a formal complaint is accepted for investigation, the agency's settlement authority and representatives stop thinking about it until the complainant timely requests an EEOC hearing or files a civil action in the case with the U.S. District Court. I think that's the wrong approach." Instead, Mr. Mahoney suggested that agencies offer more ADR during the investigation stage of a formal EEO complaint rather than in the informal EEO complaint stage and rather than waiting until the case reaches EEOC for a hearing.