Contains: reasons for using Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR); the types of ADR that have made available to employees through procedures other than those under collective bargaining agree., & the extent to which they have put these ADR processes in place; & the results achieved by using ADR. Examines a number of private companies & fed. agencies &: their experiences in planning & implementing ADR processes; the extent to which they evaluated their ADR processes & to which they reported that these processes have been successful in resolving workplace disputes; & the lessons they learned in planning, implementing, & evaluating their ADR processes.
We are now more than half a century removed from height of the rights revolution, a time when the federal government significantly increased legal protection for disadvantaged individuals and groups, leading in the process to a dramatic expansion in access to courts and judicial authority to oversee these protections. Yet while the majority of the landmark laws and legal precedents expanding access to justice remain intact, less than two percent of civil cases are decided by a trial today. What explains this phenomenon, and why it is so difficult to get one's day in court? No Day in Court examines the sustained efforts of political and legal actors to scale back access to the courts in the decades since it was expanded, largely in the service of the rights revolution of the 1950s and 1960s. Since that time, for political, ideological, and practical reasons, a multifaceted group of actors have attempted to diminish the role that courts play in American politics. Although the conventional narrative of backlash focuses on an increasingly conservative Supreme Court, Congress, and activists aiming to constrain the developments of the Civil Rights era, there is another very important element to this story, in which access to the courts for rights claims has been constricted by efforts that target the "rules of the game: " the institutional and legal procedures that govern what constitutes a valid legal case, who can be sued, how a case is adjudicated, and what remedies are available through courts. These more hidden, procedural changes are pursued by far more than just conservatives, and they often go overlooked. No Day in Court explores the politics of these strategies and the effect that they have today for access to justice in the U.S.
The redress system for federal workers was designed to protect employees against arbitrary agency actions and prohibited personnel practices, such as discrimination or retaliation for whistleblowing. The redress system is inefficient, time consuming, and costly, however, and several federal agencies have been exploring alternative dispute resolution (ADR) as a way to lessen these burdens. Asked to review ADR as a substitute for inefficient and costly formal dispute resolution systems for federal workers, GAO found that private companies generally used a wider variety of ADR methods than did federal agencies. Of the private firms that reported using ADR, about 80 percent used mediation, about 39 percent used peer review panels, and about 19 percent used arbitration. Most federal agencies using ADR relied on mediation alone. Organizations using ADR generally found it to be successful in resolving disputes, thus avoiding litigation or more formal dispute resolution processes.
