702 JOURNAL OF LAW AND POLICY
resolution.^154 In recent decades, courts and federal agencies have
increasingly favored ADR processes for their efficiency and
cost-effectiveness.^155 In fact, some ADR processes are suggested,
offered, or mandated by state and federal courts.^156 Many
commentators believe that parties obtain better quality solutions
and a more satisfying outcome than they would in a trial.^157 This
(^154) See id. at 11; Frank E.A. Sander, Alternative Methods of Dispute
Resolution: An Overview, 37 U. FLA. L. REV. 1, 3 (1986).
(^155) Known as the “ADR movement,” since the 1970s, ADR has
increasingly gained support from lawyers and nonlawyers. RISKIN ET AL.,
supra note 152, at 11. In 1991, the Supreme Court in Gilmer v.
Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U.S. 20 (1991), held that an employee
was bound by the mandatory arbitration clause in his employment contract to
arbitrate his statutory employment claim. See also Mitsubishi Motors Corp.
v. Soler Chrysler-Plymouth, Inc., 473 U.S. 614, 628 (1986) (applying an
arbitration agreement to antitrust claims arising under the Sherman Antitrust
Act because “[b]y agreeing to arbitrate a statutory claim, a party does not
forgo the substantive rights afforded by the statute”). Under the Federal
Arbitration Act (“FAA”), arbitration agreements are enforceable if they are
“written provision[s] in any maritime transaction or a contract evidencing a
transaction involving commerce.” See 9 U.S.C. § 2 (2011). The 1996
Administrative Dispute Resolution Act (“ADRA”) permanently authorizes
federal agencies to use ADR to resolve complaints filed by federal
employees. 5 U.S.C. § 572 (2011). “In 2000, the EEOC required all federal
agencies to establish or make available an ADR program during the pre-
complaint and formal complaint stages of the EEO process.” Federal Sector
Alternative Dispute Resolution, U.S. EQUAL EMP’T OPPORTUNITY COMM’N,
http://www.eeoc.gov/federal/adr/index.cfm (last visited Apr. 6, 2013). Most
recently, in January 2011, the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York began mandating early mediation through the court’s
ADR program for all employment discrimination cases, except those filed
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”). See Peter J. Dugan, Southern
District of New York Mandates Early Mediation in Employment
Discrimination Cases, EMP. L. ALERT (Mar. 18, 2011),
http://www.employmentlawalert.com/2011/03/articles/alternative-dispute-
resolution/southern-district-of-new-york-mandates-early-mediation-in-
employment-discrimination-cases/.
(^156) For further discussion of ADR processes in state courts, see infra Part
V.
(^157) See, e.g., ROBERT F. COCHRAN, JR. ET AL., THE COUNSELOR-AT-
LAW: A COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO CLIENT INTERVIEWING AND
COUNSELING 198–202 (1999), reprinted in RISKIN ET AL., supra note 152, at
54–55.