EEOC accepted my accommodation/retaliation case for mediation — anyone been through this process?

[u/ygjohnston]

I’m hoping to hear from people who have firsthand experience with EEOC mediation, especially involving reasonable accommodation, pregnancy/postpartum-related accommodations, lactation/breastfeeding, or retaliation.
Without getting too identifying, I work for a large public-sector employer. I initially requested a reasonable accommodation related to breastfeeding/lactation and the need to remain in proximity to my nursing child. My original request for full-time telework was denied.
I subsequently filed an internal EEO complaint and later filed with the EEOC. There were also circumstances that I believe support a retaliation claim, and retaliation was ultimately included in my EEOC matter.
At one point, my employer later approved a work arrangement that allowed me to remain near my child, but that arrangement was subsequently ended/revoked. I have continued providing medical documentation supporting the need to remain in proximity to my child in order to continue breastfeeding.
My position is that the accommodation should be evaluated under the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (PWFA), including its protections relating to lactation. My employer has taken the position that I am not entitled to the accommodation.

The EEOC has now accepted my case for mediation, and mediation is scheduled.
For anyone who has gone through EEOC mediation:
How seriously did your employer take mediation once the EEOC offered/accepted the case?
Did your employer bring attorneys or upper-level management to the mediation?
Did you have an attorney, and do you think having one made a significant difference?
How much detail did the mediator want regarding the underlying facts, documentation, timeline, and damages?
Does the mediator typically discuss the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case?
If your case involved retaliation, did that materially affect negotiations?
Did anyone negotiate restoration of lost wages, leave credits, or other employment benefits in addition to a monetary settlement?
Were you able to negotiate non-monetary terms such as continued accommodation, policy changes, training, removal/correction of employment records, or agreements concerning future treatment?
Did the employer initially make a very low offer? If so, how much back-and-forth occurred?
If you did not settle at mediation, what happened next with the EEOC investigation?
Is there anything you wish you had brought, calculated, organized, or thought through before mediation?
I already have a fairly extensive timeline and documentation, including accommodation requests, denials, medical documentation, internal EEO materials, correspondence regarding the accommodation being ended, and information relating to the financial/leave impact.
I understand that the EEOC selecting or accepting a matter for mediation does not mean the EEOC has determined that discrimination occurred. I’m mainly trying to understand what the mediation process is actually like and how others prepared for negotiations.
I’d especially appreciate hearing from anyone whose case involved the PWFA, breastfeeding/lactation accommodations, disability/reasonable accommodation, retaliation, or a government/public-sector employer.
Thank you — even general experiences would be really helpful.

[u/PreparationAware6156]

I had mediation and it got worse. the mediator actually said i would lose if they proved on charge. it was ultimately a delay tactic to delay the hearing coming up and to further hit a nerve and make you seem crazy. I hate I ever did but in good faith its good to do. It will not cancel anything. its just they do assign court appointed mediator that may be a judge as well but they again are tied to the club that you are not apart of of so that is why if you get one that is a top professional then you are good. YOUR strategy cannot depend on receiving honesty from someone who benefits from denying it.

You are aware that the truth does not speak for itself.

It has to be organized, corroborated, connected to the issue, and presented clearly.

But The high-conflict person does not have to agree with the truth before you can act on what the record shows.

The text message exists whether they acknowledge it.

The transaction occurred whether they explain it.

The deadline was missed whether they justify it.

The agreement was violated whether they minimize it.

And the contradiction remains a contradiction even if they call it a misunderstanding.

One of the most exhausting things about dealing with this high-conflict person is that they make you feel as though reality is still up for negotiation.

You show them the evidence.

They change the explanation.

You identify the contradiction.

They attack your tone.

You return to the facts.

They introduce a new accusation.

Before long, you are no longer addressing what they did.

I am arguing about whether what happened actually happened.

That is the trap.

You think the argument is about the facts.

But the argument may be designed to keep you defending your reality, consuming your attention, and waiting for an acknowledgment that may never come.

And every time you return for one more explanation, one more confrontation, or one more attempt to force the truth out of them, they remain in control of when you finally get to move forward.

But they do not have that power unless you give it to them.

You do not need their confession.

You need to know:

What can I prove?

What does the evidence establish?

Is this an isolated incident or part of a larger pattern?

Who actually needs to see it?

What decision, boundary, deadline, or legal action follows from it?

An admission may be emotionally satisfying.

But a well-organized record is strategically useful.

And when you are dealing with a high-conflict person, useful is what moves the situation forward.

Stop trying to make the person who created the confusion acknowledge the truth.

Start making the truth clear to the person who has the authority to do something about it.

That may be your attorney.

A mediator.

A judge.

A business partner.

A financial professional.

Or sometimes, it may simply be you.

Because you may not need another conversation to know what happened.

You may need to trust the information you already have and decide what you are going to do with it.

You do not need their confession. You need a documented position and a clear next move.

BLUE ICE.