Citing the Supreme Court's holding in E.E.O.C. v. Waffle House, Inc., 534 U.S. 279 (2002), a federal district court in Florida denied an employer's request to compel arbitration of claims brought by the E.E.O.C. pursuant to an employer-employee contract.

In E.E.O.C. v. Taco Bell of America, Inc., employer Taco Bell asked the Court to compel the E.E.O.C. to arbitrate an employment dispute involving one of their employees who signed an agreement to arbitrate. The E.E.O.C. claimed it was not bound to arbitrate because it was not a party to the agreement. The Court agreed.

Noting that the question of whether an arbitration agreement between an employer and employee bars the E.E.O.C. from pursuing victim-specific relief has already been answered in the negative by the Supreme Court in Waffle House, the Court refused to grant Taco Bell's request to compel E.E.O.C. to participate in arbitration.

At the same time, the Court strictly limited the ability of the employee, who was bound by the arbitration clause in her employment agreement, to participate in the execution of the case. Specifically, the employee was limited to monitoring the proceedings, but could not actively participate in the prosecution of the case.

On January 10, U.S. District Judge L.T. Senter Jr. ordered to mediation 83 lawsuits that concern Katrina-related insurance payouts. Included are lawsuits filed on behalf of Mississippi congressmen Trent Lott and Gene Taylor.

AP writer Garry Mitchell's January 10 article, "Judge Orders Mediation in Katrina Suits," appeared on the Houston Chronicle's website as part of its ongoing coverage of Katrina-related claims and dispute resolution. Mitchell's article also notes that State Farm Insurance, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood, and homeowners' attorneys are close to producing a mass settlement that would cover all State Farm policyholders in three coastal Mississippi counties, not just those policyholders engaged in litigation.

Mediation is a method of dispute resolution whereby the disputing parties achieve a mutually-satisfactory resolution with the assistance of a mediator. Unlike arbitration sessions, mediation sessions are not “decided” in favor of one party or another; rather, the mediator simply facilitates the negotiation process between the parties. cMediating parties are not bound to resolve their dispute (although mediated settlements, once reached, can be made binding if the parties decide to draft a contract called a settlement agreement).

Arbitrating parties, on the other hand, receive a final decision from the arbitrator, which is either binding or non- binding depending on the terms of the arbitration agreement.