Global Perspectives on Employment Litigation: Part 2

Globalization continues to transform workplaces into vibrant intersections of cultures and practices. Yet with this richness comes complexity: Cross-cultural misunderstandings can easily escalate into disputes when legal systems and cultural expectations collide. These tensions were at the heart of the recent panel event hosted by JAMS, Global Perspectives: Navigating Employment Disputes Across Borders – Part 2.

We had the privilege of co-leading and participating in this discussion at the JAMS New York Resolution Center, alongside distinguished attorneys Denise Backhouse, Mark Goldstein and Aliaksandra Jain. Through real-life case studies, the panel explored how cultural differences shape both employment disputes and their resolution—particularly through mediation.

Below, we share key lessons and reflections from this engaging dialogue.

Understanding the Role of Culture in Workplace Disputes

The panel discussion underscored how often-overlooked cultural dimensions can influence employment disputes. Drawing from the framework developed by Geert Hofstede and other scholars, the panelists advanced several key cultural dimensions as critical lenses for understanding these conflicts:

• Individualism vs. collectivism
• Power distance
• Uncertainty avoidance
• Masculinity vs. femininity
• Long-term orientation

Each of these dimensions helps explain how cultural context affects not only the substance of disputes, but also the process and expectations around resolution.

Individualism vs. Collectivism: More Than Just a Contract

In collectivist cultures—common across Asia, the Middle East and Latin America—employment relationships are often viewed as deeply personal, resembling familial ties rather than mere contractual arrangements. This contrasts sharply with the transactional, contract-centered perspective typical of individualist cultures such as the United States.

One panelist shared a dispute involving a Japanese multinational where a senior executive reacted strongly to the aggressive tone and scope of U.S.-style legal discovery. The request for internal emails and personnel files was perceived not just as intrusive but as disrespectful—a violation of the harmony and confidentiality highly valued in Japanese corporate culture. Even though U.S. counsel attempted to explain discovery obligations diplomatically, the executive felt blamed rather than advised.

This example highlights the importance of cultural fluency for legal advisors and mediators. In high-context cultures like Japan, indirectness and trust are critical, and legal procedures must be framed carefully to avoid triggering defensiveness.

Another case involved a family-run business from the Middle East that hired a recent immigrant in the U.S. The worker had asked to be paid in cash to avoid visa complications, and the owners—thinking they were helping—called the role an “internship,” a term they associated with informal work arrangements back home. Months later, the worker sued for unpaid wages. Panelists noted how a mediator could have helped by first acknowledging the cultural gap—clarifying that U.S. law requires formal pay regardless of what’s customary elsewhere. Bringing in a neutral third party could have depersonalized the issue, while a face-saving settlement might have resolved the matter without an admission of wrongdoing.

A similar case involved a Chinese immigrant employer in the U.S. who had treated an employee like family—providing meals and lodging but failing to meet formal wage requirements. When the employee eventually filed for unpaid overtime, both parties felt betrayed. Here, the mediator’s cultural awareness was key to reframing the dispute: acknowledging the employer’s generosity while clarifying the non-negotiable legal obligations under U.S. labor law.

To illustrate the real-world impact of cultural fluency, the panel presented a mock case based on this case. The exchanges below highlight the difference between a culturally insensitive approach and a culturally fluent one:

Power Distance and Uncertainty Avoidance: Silence Is Not Always Consent

The panel also explored how power distance—the degree to which less powerful individuals accept hierarchical structures—affects dispute dynamics. In high power-distance cultures, employees may be reluctant to challenge authority or raise grievances directly, sometimes staying silent until a situation becomes unbearable. Employers, operating under the assumption that no news is good news, may be blindsided when claims do surface.

Similarly, uncertainty avoidance—a culture’s comfort level with ambiguity—shapes how individuals respond to conflict. In cultures with high uncertainty avoidance, employees might accept vague assurances over confronting uncomfortable issues directly. Mediators, therefore, must work patiently to clarify expectations and reduce anxiety, helping all parties engage more openly in the resolution process.

Masculinity vs. Femininity: Competition, Care and Conflict

In Hofstede’s work, the masculinity vs. femininity dimension refers to whether a culture emphasizes competition and assertiveness (masculinity) or cooperation and care (femininity). One panelist shared a case involving an employee originally from Russia, openly gay, who faced repeated stereotypical “masculine” jokes about toughness and drinking—comments that compounded the broader hostility faced by LGBTQ individuals in his home country.

Although this case was resolved through negotiations rather than mediation, it underscored how cultural context—gender norms, political dynamics and identity—can magnify the emotional stakes of workplace disputes.

Adding Context to Conflicts of Interest

Cultural norms also shape perceptions of professional ethics. In one example, a U.S.-based lawyer was surprised to learn that, in Jordan, the same attorney might represent both employer and employee—a practice at odds with American conflict-of-interest standards. Here, the power distance dimension again offers insight: In hierarchical cultures, overlapping roles may be normalized, whereas American legal culture demands stricter separations to preserve fairness and independence.

This highlights the need for lawyers and mediators to educate themselves about local practices and legal traditions before advising clients in foreign jurisdictions.

Key Takeaways for Cross-Cultural Mediation

The panel’s discussions yielded several essential lessons for attorneys and mediators engaged in culturally complex employment disputes:

1. Expect nonlinear narratives.
   Collectivist and high power-distance backgrounds often produce dispute stories centered on personal relationships and obligations, not just contract terms.
2. Prioritize trust-building and psychological safety.
   Effective mediation requires patience and space for candid disclosures, especially when cultural norms discourage direct confrontation.
3. Respect face-saving mechanisms.
   Preserving dignity can be as important as financial settlements in high-context cultures. Mediators should frame discussions to allow all parties to save face.
4. Clarify legal standards without judgment.
   Explaining rather than imposing U.S. legal norms fosters understanding and cooperation, particularly when practices differ from local expectations.
5. Leverage neutral experts where appropriate.
   Involving cultural advisors, translators or financial experts can depersonalize sensitive issues, helping parties focus on resolution rather than blame.
    

This event reinforced a critical truth: Resolving cross-border employment disputes demands more than legal expertise. It requires cultural fluency, empathy and adaptability. By understanding the values and communication styles that shape parties’ perspectives, mediators and counsel can navigate disputes with sensitivity—bridging divides not only between individuals, but also across legal systems and cultural worlds.