IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                    ________________________
                                
                        No. 03-10296-DD
                    ________________________

LAVITA CHALICE TURNER,
     Plaintiff-Appellant,

     v.

SOUTHEAST-ATLANTIC BEVERAGE CORP.,                        
     Defendant-Appellee,

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
     Defendant-Appellee.
  ___________________________________________________________
                                
        On Appeal from the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
                  Civil No. 00-4100-CIV-MOORE
  ___________________________________________________________
                                
              BRIEF OF THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
              OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AS APPELLEE  
  ___________________________________________________________

                              ERIC S. DREIBAND
                              General Counsel

                              CAROLYN L. WHEELER
                              Acting Associate General Counsel

                              LORRAINE C. DAVIS
                              Assistant General Counsel

                              SUSAN R. OXFORD
                              Attorney
                              EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM.
                              1801 L Street, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C.   20507
                              Tel (202) 663-4791
                              Fax (202) 663-7090

Turner v. Southeast-Atlantic Beverage Corp.            C-1 of 2
No. 03-10296-DD

             CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS AND
                 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

     Appellee U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
submits this list, pursuant to 11th Cir. Rule 26.1, of trial
judges, attorneys, and other persons and corporations known to
have an interest in the outcome of this appeal:

Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan, P.A., Attorneys for Appellee 
James Crown, Mediator for EEOC
Lorraine C. Davis, Assistant General Counsel, EEOC
Melissa A. Dearing, Esq., Attorney for Appellee SE-Atlantic
Eric S. Dreiband, General Counsel, EEOC
James S. Feltman, Trustee in Bankruptcy proceeding
William C. Healy, Asst. U.S. Attorney
David A. Howard, Esq., Attorney for Appellant
Mary W. Jarrett, Attorney for Appellee
James L. Lee, Deputy General Counsel, EEOC
Jim Miller, Esq., Bankruptcy Trustee's Attorney
Honorable K. Michael Moore, U.S.D.J., Southern Dist. of Florida
Kathleen W. Oram, Attorney, EEOC
Honorable John J. O'Sullivan, U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S.D.C.
Susan R. Oxford, Attorney, EEOC

Turner v. Southeast-Atlantic Beverage Corp.            C-2 of 2
No. 03-10296-DD

Honorable Peter Palermo, Sr. U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S.D.C.
Thomas J. Schlageter, Asst. Legal Counsel, EEOC
Southeast-Atlantic Beverage Corp., Appellee
Lavita C. Turner, Appellant 
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Appellee
Carolyn L. Wheeler, Acting Associate General Counsel, EEOC

                              _____________________________
                              Susan R. Oxford
                                                  
              STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
                                
     Pursuant to 11th Cir. R. 28-1(c), Appellee U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC") does not
believe that oral argument is needed or would assist the Court in
resolving the issues presented in this case.  Consistent with
F.R.A.P. Rule 34(a)(2)(C) and 11th Cir. R. 34-3(b), EEOC believes
that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented in the
parties' briefs and record in this case and that this Court's
decisional process will not be significantly aided by oral
argument.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
                                                            page
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS . . . . . . . . . . . .    C-1
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     i
TABLE OF CITATIONS  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   iii
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     1
A.  Course of Proceedings and Dispositions Below  . . . .     1
B.  Statement of Facts  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     2
C.  Standard of Review  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     4
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     5
ARGUMENT  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     6
I.   Turner Has Not Raised Any Issues on Appeal with Respect
     to the District Court's Dismissal of EEOC as a Party
     to this Lawsuit  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     6

II.  EEOC Mediation is Designed to be Voluntary and 
     Enforceable  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .     7

CONCLUSION  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    16
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
APPENDIX
  Attachment A      "History of EEOC Mediation Program" . .  1a

  Attachment B      "Facts About Mediation" . . . . . . . .  2a

  Attachment C      EEOC Alternative Dispute Resolution 
                    Policy Statement No. 915.002 (7/17/95) . 3a

  Attachment D      "Questions and Answers About Mediation"  7a

  Attachment E      Affidavit of Patrick Kokenge . . . . . . 10a

  Attachment E-1    Mediation Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . 14a

  Attachment E-2    Form cover letter about EEOC mediation 
                    program  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15a

  Attachment E-3    Agreement to Mediate form  . . . . . . . 16a

  Attachment E-4    Confidentiality Agreement form . . . . . 17a

  Attachment E-5    Agreement to Mediate signed by 
                    SE-Atlantic Beverage Corp. 
                    (Nov. 10, 1999)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18a

  Attachment E-6    Confidentiality Agreement signed by
                    SE-Atlantic Beverage Corp.  
                    (Nov. 10, 1999)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 19a 

  Attachment E-7    Agreement to Mediate signed by 
                    Lavita C. Turner (Dec. 3, 1999)  . . . . 20a

  Attachment E-8    Confidentiality Agreement signed 
                    by Lavita C. Turner (Dec. 3, 1999) . . . 21a
 
          
                       TABLE OF CITATIONS

CASES                                                       page

*  Chavis v. Clayton County Sch. Dist., 300 F.3d 1288 
     (11th Cir.), reh'g & reh'g en banc denied, 
     __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2002)  . . . . . . . . .   7 

   Eatmon v. Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc., 
     769 F.2d 1503 (11th Cir. 1985) . . . . . . . . . . . .  12

   EEOC v. Henry Beck Co., 729 F.2d 301 
     (4th Cir. 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12, 16

   EEOC v. Safeway Stores, 714 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1983) . .   13

*  Sammie Bonner Const. Co. v. Western Star Trucks
     Sales, Inc., 330 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2003)  . . . . .   7

*  Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33 (D.C.Cir.), 
     cert. denied, 522 U.S. 958 (1997) . . . . . . . . . .    6

*  Storey v. Rubin, 976 F. Supp. 1478 (N.D.Ga. 1997), 
     aff'd without op., 144 F.3d 56 (11th Cir. 1998)  . . .   7

STATUTES

Civil Rights Act of 1991, Pub. L. 102-166, 
      118 [42 U.S.C. 1981 note] . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 
     42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq.  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .    2

42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(b)  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12

42 U.S.C. 2000e-5(f)(1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   12

MISCELLANEOUS                                               page

EEOC Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy Statement, 
     No. 915.002 (7/17/95), EEOC Compliance Manual
     [BNA] N:3055 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9, 10, 11, 13

EEOC v. Creative Dimensions, Inc., 
     Civ. No. 3:00-CV-0581 (N.D.Ind.)(filed 9/20/00) . . . . 13

EEOC v. Infotech Training Institute, 
     Civ. No. 1:01-CV-02686 (D.D.C.)(filed 12/31/01) . . . . 13

EEOC v. The Imagine Group, Inc., 
     Civ. No. 02-CV-10025 (S.D.N.Y.)(filed 12/19/02) . . . . 13

EEOC v. U.S. Alliance Management Corp. d/b/a U.S. 
     Security, Civ. No. 02-CV-21573 
     (S.D.Fla., filed 5/24/02) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

"Facts About Mediation," www.eeog.gov  . . . . . . . . 8, 9, 10

"History of EEOC Mediation Program," www.eeoc.gov  . .     8, 9

"Questions and Answers About Mediation,"
     www.eeoc.gov  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11, 13, 14, 15

                                                 
       IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                    FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
                    ________________________
                                
                        No. 03-10296-DD
                    ________________________

LAVITA CHALICE TURNER,
     Plaintiff-Appellant,

     v.

SOUTHEAST-ATLANTIC BEVERAGE CORP.,                        
     Defendant-Appellee,

U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION,
     Defendant-Appellee.
  ___________________________________________________________
                                
        On Appeal from the United States District Court
      for the Southern District of Florida, Miami Division
                  Civil No. 00-4100-CIV-MOORE
  ___________________________________________________________
                                
              BRIEF OF THE U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT 
              OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION AS APPELLEE  
  ___________________________________________________________

                     STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A.  Course of Proceedings and Dispositions Below
     This case arises out of a pro se complaint that plaintiff-
appellant Lavita Chalice Turner filed in district court, R.1
(Cmplt); R.22 (Amended Cmplt), alleging, among other things, that
her former employer, defendant-appellee Southeast Atlantic Beverage
Corporation, Inc., ("SE-Atlantic Beverage") discriminated against
her based on her race and retaliated against her for complaining of
such discrimination, in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000e et seq. ("Title VII").  Turner's
amended complaint also alleged that the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission ("Commission" or "EEOC") improperly handled
the discrimination charge she filed with EEOC in 1999.  R.22 at 18-
20.  By order dated February 28, 2002, the district court dismissed
those portions of plaintiff's complaint directed at EEOC.  R.50. 
The matter now comes before this Court on Turner's appeal from the
January 7, 2003, order of the district court granting summary
judgment to SE-Atlantic Beverage.  R.117.  The district court
granted summary judgment on the grounds that before filing this
lawsuit, Turner knowingly and voluntarily entered into an
enforceable agreement with SE-Atlantic Beverage to resolve her
claims during a mediation session conducted by the Commission
pursuant to EEOC's established mediation program.  Id. at 1-3.
B.  Statement of Facts
     Turner filed a charge of employment discrimination against her
former employer, SE-Atlantic Beverage, on November 1, 1999.  R.109
(Magistrate's December 10, 2002, Report and Recommendation) at 1. 
Pursuant to standard EEOC procedure, EEOC explained its voluntary
mediation program to Turner and SE-Atlantic Beverage and invited
the parties to mediate Turner's charge.  R.22 (Amended Cmplt) at
18; Affidavit of Patrick Kokenge at  2-5 (Attachment E).  The
parties were each sent a form letter enclosing EEOC's Mediation
Fact Sheet along with a copy of EEOC's standard Agreement to
Mediate and Confidentiality Agreement.  The cover letter advised
the parties to return the signed agreements if they chose to
participate in voluntary mediation.  Id. at  3, 5 & Attchmnt E-2.
     SE-Atlantic Beverage and Turner both signed and returned the
forms (dated November 10 and December 3, 1999, respectively), id.,
and mediation was conducted on January 31, 2000.  R.109
(Magistrate's 12/10/02 R&R) at 2.  At the end of the one-day
mediation session, the parties signed a settlement agreement
indicating that Turner agreed to resolve all of her existing claims
against SE-Atlantic Beverage as of that date in exchange for which
SE-Atlantic Beverage would pay Turner $13,000; provide medical
benefits covering her pregnancy, delivery and post-delivery medical
care for herself and her baby until six weeks following delivery;
and provide Turner with a favorable job reference.  Id. at 2-3.  An
EEOC representative also signed the agreement.  See Settlement
Agreement at 2 (Appellant's Record Excerpts).  Turner received the
relief specified in the agreement.  R.109 (Magistrate's 12/10/02
R&R) at 3 (citing Pl. Dep. at 207). 
     Turner filed this lawsuit in October 2000 asserting, among
other things, her original claims of race discrimination and
retaliation against SE-Atlantic Beverage and alleging that EEOC
mishandled her charge of employment discrimination during EEOC's
administrative processes.  R.1; R.22.  The district court granted
EEOC's motion to dismiss the allegations against EEOC for failure
to state a claim.  R.50.  The district court thereafter granted
summary judgment to SE-Atlantic Beverage Corp. on the ground that
Turner had already resolved the same claims in the settlement
agreement she signed at the end of the EEOC mediation session. 
R.117.
C.  Standard of Review
     EEOC adopts the standard of review set forth by the parties in
Appellant Turner's Opening Brief, App.Brf at 7, and Appellee SE-
Atlantic Beverage's Answer Brief, SEAtl.Brf at 18-19, for this
Court's review of a district court's ruling on a motion for summary
judgment.  Turner has identified no other issue in her Notice of
Appeal, R.119, or in her Statement of the Issue in her opening
brief.  App.Brf at 2. 
                      SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
     Turner has appealed the district court's grant of summary
judgment with respect to her claims against SE-Atlantic Beverage,
asserting for various reasons that the agreement that she and SE-
Atlantic Beverage's representative signed is not enforceable. 
Turner, who is now represented by counsel, has not alleged any
error on the part of the district court in dismissing her claims
against EEOC.  The Commission respectfully submits that the
district court properly dismissed EEOC as a party to this action
for the reasons set forth in the district court's February 28,
2002, order, R.50.  At any rate, having failed to challenge the
propriety of that order in her opening brief filed with this Court,
Turner has waived any claim of error with respect to the dismissal
of EEOC as a party to this case. 
     Turner does, however, criticize both the settlement agreement
reached during EEOC mediation and the manner in which her mediation
was conducted.  The Commission's mediation program is based on a
number of key principles, to which EEOC carefully adheres in its
administration of this system of alternative dispute resolution. 
Two are of particular relevance to this proceeding.  First,
charging parties and employers are advised that participation in
EEOC mediations is voluntary on the part of all parties and that it
remains voluntary throughout the process.  Second, parties must be
able to enforce agreements reached during an EEOC mediation.  
     To assist this Court in resolving the claims Turner raises in
this appeal, the Commission offers, for background purposes, an
explanation of its mediation program.
                            ARGUMENT
I.   Turner Has Not Raised Any Issues on Appeal with Respect to the
     District Court's Dismissal of EEOC as a Party to this Lawsuit.

     In her opening brief, Turner identifies the issue on appeal as
"[w]hether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in
favor of appellee on the ground that appellant's claims were barred
by a prior settlement agreement," App.Brf at 2, and identifies the
"appellee" in question as "Southeast Atlantic Beverage Corp."  Id.
at 3.  Thereafter throughout her opening brief, Turner argues why,
in her view, the district court erred when it granted summary
judgment to SE-Atlantic Beverage.  See App.Brf at 8-20.  Turner has
not argued that the district court erred in dismissing EEOC as a
defendant, and that decision is correct for the reasons set forth
in the magistrate's Report and Recommendation, R.43, which the
district court adopted in its entirety, R.50.  See, e.g., Smith v.
Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C.Cir.) ("...Congress has not
authorized, either expressly or impliedly, a cause of action
against the EEOC for the EEOC's alleged negligence or other
malfeasance in processing an employment discrimination charge."),
cert. denied, 522 U.S. 958 (1997); Storey v. Rubin, 976 F. Supp.
1478, 1483-84 (N.D. Ga. 1997) (no express or implied right of
action against EEOC based on agency's handling of an administrative
complaint of discrimination), aff'd without op., 144 F.3d 56 (11th
Cir. 1998).  In any event, any claim that the district court erred
in dismissing EEOC from this lawsuit has now been waived based on
Turner's failure to assert any such argument in her opening brief. 
Sammie Bonner Const. Co. v. Western Star Trucks Sales, Inc., 330
F.3d 1308, 1310 n.2 (11th Cir. 2003); Chavis v. Clayton County Sch.
Dist., 300 F.3d 1288, 1291 n.4 (11th Cir.) ("issues not argued on
appeal are deemed waived, and a passing reference in an appellate
brief is insufficient to raise an issue")(citation omitted), reh'g
& reh'g en banc denied, __ F.3d __ (11th Cir. Oct. 7, 2002). 
II.  EEOC Mediation is Designed to be Voluntary and Enforceable.
     EEOC has been mediating discrimination claims filed by
Charging Parties against employers for more than a decade, starting
with a pilot program begun in 1991 involving four EEOC field
offices.  The Commission concluded that mediation was an effective
way of addressing many of the charges the agency receives each
year, and in 1995 the Commission adopted its Alternative Dispute
Resolution policy setting forth the principles that would guide
EEOC's agency-wide mediation program.  By the end of fiscal year
1997, every EEOC district office had a mediation program in place
utilizing a combination of internal EEOC staff who serve as
mediators, external "contract mediators," and persons providing pro
bono mediation services.  See "History of EEOC Mediation Program"
(2/11/99), www.eeog.gov (Attachment A).  
     As EEOC's public website explains, "[m]ediation is a form of
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) that is offered by the [EEOC]
as an alternative to the traditional investigative or litigation
process."  See "Facts About Mediation" (2/11/99), www.eeog.gov
(Attachment B).  It is an "an informal process in which a neutral
third party assists the opposing parties to reach a voluntary,
negotiated resolution of a charge of discrimination."  The mediator
"does not resolve the charge or impose a decision on the parties,"
but helps the parties, themselves, "agree on a mutually acceptable
resolution" in a confidential proceeding.  Id.  Moreover,
mediation, where successful, is an efficient means of resolving an
employment discrimination claim, since most mediations are
completed in one session that usually lasts for between one and
five hours.  Id.  If the mediation session is unsuccessful in
resolving the claim, the charge returns to the administrative
process and is investigated like any other charge.  Id.
     To guide Commission staff in identifying appropriate cases for
mediation and to guide EEOC's mediators (including staff, contract,
and pro bono mediators) in conducting EEOC mediations, the
Commission's 1995 ADR Policy incorporated several "core principles"
which are still in effect today.  "History of EEOC Mediation
Program"; see EEOC's Alternative Dispute Resolution Policy
Statement, No. 915.002 (7/17/95), EEOC Compliance Manual [BNA]
N:3055 ("ADR Policy Statement") (Attachment C).  The Commission's
Policy Statement provides that, in order to further EEOC's mission,
the Commission's mediation process must be fair to the
participants.  "Fairness," in turn, encompasses several distinct
concepts, including  voluntariness, neutrality, confidentiality,
and enforceability.  These core principles governed EEOC mediations
when Turner mediated her employment discrimination claims in
January 2000, and they continue to govern EEOC mediations today.  
     First, EEOC-sponsored mediation is voluntary for the parties. 
As the Commission's Policy Statement indicates:
     [T]he parties must knowingly, willingly and voluntarily
     enter into an ADR proceeding.  Likewise, the parties have
     the right to voluntarily opt out of a proceeding at any
     point prior to resolution for any reason, including the
     exercise of their right to file a lawsuit in federal
     district court.  In no circumstances will a party be
     coerced into accepting the other party's offer to resolve
     a dispute. [Id. at 2.]

     Second, EEOC mediation relies on a neutral third party to
facilitate resolution of the dispute.  Id.  As the Policy Statement
notes, use of "a neutral or impartial third party, with no vested
interest in the outcome of a dispute, allows the parties themselves
to attempt to resolve their dispute."  Use of a neutral facilitator
helps "maintain the integrity and effectiveness of the ADR
program."  Id.  To help maintain this neutrality, the parties to
any EEOC-sponsored mediation are advised beforehand that "[t]he
mediator(s) will not voluntarily testify on behalf of a party in
any pending or future administrative or judicial proceeding."  See
Confidentiality Agreement at  4 (Kokenge Affidavit, Attachment E-
4). 
     Third, in order to encourage candid participation by the
parties, EEOC mediations are strictly confidential, see ADR Policy
Statement at 3, and "[i]nformation disclosed during mediation will
not be revealed to anyone, including other EEOC employees."  See
"Facts About Mediation" (2/11/99), supra.  The parties are advised
that the only matter the mediator reports to the Commission
following an EEOC mediation is whether the charge was resolved in
mediation and, if so, the amount of any benefits received by a
charging party pursuant to a mediated settlement agreement.  This
information is compiled by the Commission only to provide aggregate
data for EEOC's reporting obligations.  See Agreement to Mediate
(Kokenge Affidavit, Attachment E-3).  Indeed, the confidentiality
of EEOC's mediation process is so important that mediation sessions
are not tape-recorded or transcribed, and EEOC advises the parties
beforehand that any notes taken by the mediator during the
mediation will be discarded after the mediation is concluded.  The
parties are also required to agree beforehand "not to subpoena the
mediator(s) or compel the mediator(s) to produce any documents
provided by a party in any pending or future administrative or
judicial proceeding."  See "Questions and Answers About Mediation" 
at 1, 2 (Attachment D), found at EEOC's public website at
www.eeoc.gov; see also Agreement to Mediate (Kokenge Affidavit,
Attachment E-3) & Confidentiality Agreement at  4 (Kokenge
Affidavit, Attachment E-4); Kokenge Affidavit at  7 (discussing
the Confidentiality Agreement signed by Turner and SE-Atlantic
Beverage Corp.). 
     Finally, EEOC's Policy Statement on Alternative Dispute
Resolution provides that "[a]ny agreement reached during an ADR
proceeding must be enforceable."  ADR Policy Statement at 3. 
Enforceability of mediated settlement agreements is consistent with
Congress's strong preference, in enacting Title VII, for informal
resolution of employment discrimination claims.  See 42 U.S.C.
2000e-5(b), (f)(1) (EEOC required, whenever it finds reasonable
cause to believe discrimination occurred, to attempt to eliminate
the unlawful practice "by informal methods of conference,
conciliation, and persuasion"); see also Civil Rights Act of 1991,
Pub. L. 102-166,  118 [42 U.S.C. 1981 note](use of alternative
means of dispute resolution, including mediation, "is encouraged to
resolve disputes arising under [Title VII]"); cf. EEOC v. Henry
Beck Co., 729 F.2d 301, 306 (4th Cir. 1984) ("EEOC's function as an
efficient conciliator ... is central to Title VII's statutory
scheme").  This Court has recognized that if non-judicial
resolutions of employment discrimination claims are to have any
meaning, they have to be enforceable in court.  See Eatmon v.
Bristol Steel & Iron Works, Inc., 769 F.2d 1503, 1508-13 (11th Cir.
1985) (discussing importance of both EEOC's and the parties'
respective abilities to seek judicial enforcement of conciliation
agreements as well as other kinds of settlement agreements
negotiated prior to an EEOC cause determination).  Enforceability
of settlement agreements reached by the parties in EEOC-sponsored
mediation is, for similar reasons, critical in order to ensure that
mediation remains an effective means of resolving EEOC charges and,
thus, an attractive alternative to employers and charging parties. 
Cf. EEOC v. Safeway Stores, 714 F.2d 567, 573 (5th Cir. 1983)
("usefulness of conciliation agreements as vehicles for voluntary
resolution of employment discrimination charges would be
significantly reduced' if the agreements were not enforceable [in
federal court]").  
     Because enforcement of mediated settlement agreements is
important to the success of EEOC's mediation program, the
Commission reviews any allegations that an ADR settlement agreement
has been breached to "determine whether it will utilize its
authority and resources to seek enforcement of the agreement."  ADR
Policy Statement at 3; see also "Questions and Answers About
Mediation," supra, at 2.  In a number of instances, EEOC has
instituted proceedings in court to enforce a settlement agreement
reached during an EEOC-conducted mediation.  See, e.g., EEOC v.
U.S. Alliance Management Corp. d/b/a U.S. Security, Civ. No. 02-CV-
21573 (S.D.Fla., filed 5/24/02) (pending); EEOC v. The Imagine
Group, Inc., Civ. No. 02-CV-10025 (S.D.N.Y., filed 12/19/02)
(resolved by consent decree 3/26/03); EEOC v. Infotech Training
Institute, Civ. No. 1:01-CV-02686 (D.D.C., filed 12/31/01)
(resolved by settlement agreement 9/18/02); EEOC v. Creative
Dimensions, Inc., Civ. No. 3:00-CV-0581 (N.D.Ind., filed 9/20/00)
(resolved by consent decree 7/27/01).  
     Not every discrimination charge filed with the Commission is
eligible for mediation.  See "Questions and Answers About
Mediation" at 2.  EEOC staff assess the mediation potential of each
charge early in the administrative process, usually before an
investigation begins.  Id. at 1.  Commission staff may determine
that a particular charge is inappropriate for mediation based on
the size and complexity of the case, the relationship of the
parties, the relief sought by the charging party, or the fact that
the charge appears to be without merit.  Id. at 2.   
     If EEOC staff determine a charge is appropriate for mediation,
the Charging Party and the Respondent are given basic information
about EEOC's mediation program and invited to mediate.  Id. at 1;
Kokenge Affidavit at  2-3; see also "Get the Facts Series:
Mediation" (Kokenge Affidavit, Attachment E-1).  If the Charging
Party and the Respondent both agree to mediate the charge, they are
asked to sign a Mediation Agreement (which explains the mediation
program and reiterates, among other things, the voluntary nature of
the process) and a Confidentiality Agreement (through which the
parties agree to maintain confidentiality of information disclosed
during mediation).  See Kokenge Affidavit at  3.  Because the
process is "strictly voluntary," however, "[i]f either party
declines to participate in mediation, the charge will be processed
just like any other charge."  See "Questions and Answers About
Mediation" at 1.  Likewise, if the parties agree to mediate the
charge but are unable to reach a mutually-acceptable agreement
during the mediation process, "the charge is returned to an [EEOC]
investigative unit" and thereafter "processed just like any other
[EEOC] charge."  Id. at 2.
     EEOC mediations are informal proceedings.  Parties are
permitted to have an attorney or other representative accompany
them to the mediation, but are not required to bring a
representative.  Id.  Accordingly, it is EEOC's position that a
mediation proceeding would not be "unfair," and a settlement
agreement reached during mediation would not be unenforceable, on
the grounds that a party chose as a representative an attorney who
is licensed to practice law in a jurisdiction other than the one in
which the mediation is being held.  See App.Brf at 15, 18.  In
addition, the Agreement to Mediate that the parties sign before the
Commission schedules mediation makes it clear that the mediator
"will not function as the representative of either party" and
states that "[e]ach party acknowledges being advised to seek
independent legal review prior to signing any settlement
agreement."  See Agreement to Mediate (Kokenge Affidavit,
Attachment E-3); see App.Brf at 18. 
     For appropriate charges and where both parties are willing,
EEOC's mediation program is an efficient means of resolving claims
of employment discrimination quickly, without recourse to either a
full EEOC investigation or adjudication in the courts.  The
comments of the Fourth Circuit in addressing a different and
earlier form of pre-cause determination settlements holds true in
this context, as well:
     By allowing more frequent settlements, [mediation] saves
     resources that might otherwise be consumed in litigation
     and furthers the statutory goal of voluntary compliance. 
     In addition, it enhances the aim of rapidly resolving
     disputes by encouraging early resolution before the
     Commission is required to expend time in investigations
     and reasonable cause determinations.

EEOC v. Henry Beck Co., 729 F.2d at 305. 
                           CONCLUSION
     EEOC's voluntary mediation program has been designed to offer
willing parties an effective alternative to lengthy administrative
investigations.  Along with the important principles of
voluntariness, neutrality and confidentiality, the enforceability
of agreements reached during EEOC mediation is a critical element
of EEOC's mediation process.
                              Respectfully submitted,

                              ERIC S. DREIBAND
                              General Counsel

                              CAROLYN L. WHEELER
                              Acting Associate General Counsel

                              LORRAINE C. DAVIS
                              Assistant General Counsel

                              ___________________________
                              SUSAN R. OXFORD
                              Attorney
                              EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMM.
                              1801 L Street, N.W.
                              Washington, D.C.   20507
                              Tel. (202) 663-4791           
                              Fax  (202) 663-7090

Dated: September 9, 2003

                   CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

     I hereby certify that this brief complies with the type-volume
limitations set forth in F.R.A.P. 32(a)(7)(B)(i).  The brief is
prepared in Courier New 12-point type and contains 3,164 words.

                         

                                                        
                                Susan R. Oxford

                    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

     I hereby certify that on this 9th day of September, 2003, I
forwarded, for filing, an original and six copies of the within
brief by regular mail (U.S.P.S.) to the Clerk of the Court for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit and served two
copies of this same brief on the counsel of record listed below by
the same means, at the following addresses:
Mary W. Jarrett, Esq.                   David A. Howard, Esq.
Melissa A. Dearing, Esq.                111 NE 1st Street 
Coffman, Coleman, Andrews & Grogan      Suite 903
800 West Monroe Street                  Miami  FL 33132 
P.O. Box 40089                                              
Jacksonville, FL 32203

                              __________________________________ 
                              SUSAN R. OXFORD

DATED:            



                        A P P E N D I X
                                                  
                   APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                            page

Attachment A        "History of EEOC Mediation Program" . .  1a

Attachment B        "Facts About Mediation" . . . . . . . .  2a

Attachment C        EEOC Alternative Dispute Resolution
                    Policy Statement No. 915.002 (7/17/95) . 3a

Attachment D        "Questions and Answers About Mediation"  7a

Attachment E        Affidavit of Patrick Kokenge . . . . . . 10a

  Attachment E-1    Mediation Fact Sheet . . . . . . . . . . 14a

  Attachment E-2    Form cover letter about EEOC mediation 
                    program  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15a

  Attachment E-3    Agreement to Mediate form  . . . . . . . 16a

  Attachment E-4    Confidentiality Agreement form . . . . . 17a

  Attachment E-5    Agreement to Mediate signed by 
                    SE-Atlantic Beverage Corp. 
                    (Nov. 10, 1999)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 18a

  Attachment E-6    Confidentiality Agreement signed 
                    by SE-Atlantic Beverage Corp. 
                    (Nov. 10, 1999)  . . . . . . . . . . . . 19a

  Attachment E-7    Agreement to Mediate signed by 
                    Lavita C. Turner (Dec. 3, 1999)  . . . . 20a

  Attachment E-8    Confidentiality Agreement signed 
                    by Lavita C. Turner (Dec. 3, 1999) . . . 21a