In half of all equality cases referred for mediation, as opposed to investigation, a "mutually acceptable agreement" is reached between the parties, a report published yesterday has shown.
This compares with those cases referred for investigation at the Office of the Director of Equality Investigation where there is "always a winner and a loser", according to Mr Ruairí Gogan, head of mediation with the office.
The ODEI report, an analysis of results achieved in mediation since Christmas 2000, describes mediation as an "innovative new service that offers the parties in a discrimination cases the opportunity, if they wish, to reach an agreed settlement".
Mediation is voluntary in that both parties must agree to this route. Otherwise an alleged case of discrimination will be investigated. Mediated cases take about six months to complete, compared with an average 18 months for investigated cases.
The analysis also found that in nearly 22 per cent of equal status and 13 per cent of employment equality cases resolved at mediation, monetary compensation was not an issue.
"Often," said Mr Gogan, "all the complainants want is the right to drink in the pub, or to have their job back." He also said parties had more control over the outcome in mediation, as when cases go to investigation they are dependent on the decision of the investigator.
Where compensation was agreed, however, the amounts paid were less than €1,000 in 80 per cent of equal status cases and less than €2,000 in 55 per cent of employment cases.
The majority of equal status cases at mediation have been taken by Travellers - 76 out of 92 cases. In the employment equality area gender makes up the highest number of cases - 14 out of 47.
In the 23 months since mediation has been offered, 139 cases out of 270 referred for mediation have completed the process, with agreements reached in 50 per cent of cases. In general, says the report, "the mediation process rarely involves more than two sessions".
Under equality legislation discrimination in employment and the provision of services is unlawful on grounds of gender, religion, marital status, age, family status, disability, sexual orientation, race and membership of the Travelling community.
