By Jen Henderson, Engelmeier & Umanah, P.A.
I recently joined the mediation and employment law practice of Sheila Engelmeier at Engelmeier & Umanah, P.A. in Minneapolis. For Minnesota employment lawyers, Sheila needs no introduction. A member of the National Academy of Distinguished Neutrals, a Best Lawyers “Lawyer of the Year,” a perennial Top 50 Woman Super Lawyer, and a Minnesota Lawyer Power 30 honoree, she is one of the finest employment lawyers and mediators in this state and, I would argue, the country. Joining her practice has given me a front-row seat to mediation at its highest level, and it has also prompted me to think more intentionally about the different approaches I bring to the table.
Most mediators operate along a spectrum between two approaches: facilitative and evaluative. I come from the facilitative tradition. A facilitative mediator is a process architect. She does not offer opinions on the merits or predict outcomes. Instead, she asks open-ended questions, helps the parties identify their underlying interests, reframes positions into shared concerns, and creates a structured environment in which the parties themselves generate solutions. The facilitative mediator trusts that, given clarity and space, the parties will find their own path to resolution. This style works well when the parties’ ongoing relationship matters and they need to feel heard, or when creative, non-monetary solutions are on the table.
Evaluative mediation takes a fundamentally different posture. The evaluative mediator draws on deep subject matter expertise to assess the strengths and weaknesses of each side’s case, offer candid opinions about likely trial outcomes, and guide the parties to negotiate in a way grounded in legal and factual reality. A key part of the evaluative process is facilitating information sharing so each side can appreciate risk. This approach is particularly effective when the parties are entrenched, the legal framework is complex, or counsel and clients need a credible third party to deliver hard truths.
This is where observing Sheila Engelmeier’s practice has been instructive for me and, I think, offers something useful for any mediator from an evaluative background. Sheila brings nearly four decades of employment law experience to the table, having represented both employers and employees, tried discrimination and harassment cases across the country, and mediated hundreds of civil disputes. That resume might suggest a purely evaluative operator. But what I find most striking is how much of her effectiveness comes from facilitative instincts: reading the emotional temperature of the room, building rapport with each party before offering any assessment, and creating space for the parties to arrive at their own conclusions. Sheila is also genuinely empathetic. Expressing sincere empathy, where appropriate, goes a long way towards building trust and a foundation for more difficult discussions about risk later in the mediation.
The two styles share more common ground than practitioners sometimes acknowledge. Both require active listening and depend on the mediator earning the room’s trust. Both work best when the mediator has prepared and understands the facts cold. The difference lies in what happens after that foundation is built. Where an average evaluative mediator might move quickly to assessment, Sheila often lingers in the facilitative space, asking questions that lead the parties to identify weaknesses in their own positions rather than telling them what those weaknesses are. Sheila acknowledges that the parties rarely, if ever, align on all facts, but she makes sure that each side understands the other’s “version of reality,” as she calls it. In other words, both parties must understand the other side’s “take” on the situation.
The practical lesson for me was one of sequencing and calibration. Sheila understands that lawyers often look to the mediator as the voice of reason, and she is willing to fill that role, but she stresses that mediations succeed when the parties are educated about their options before the mediator weighs in.
For mediators trained in the evaluative tradition, the instinct is to lead with analysis: here is the law, how a jury will see the facts, and the likely range. Sheila’s method inverts that sequence. She invests time in understanding each party’s perspective, validates their positions, and only when the parties are ready offers the candid assessment her experience makes credible.
What drew Sheila to mediation was, characteristically, a desire to do better. As she told Minnesota Lawyer, after years of representing individuals against workplace bullies, “it made me start mediation practice. I thought, there’s got to be a better way.” The Power 30: Sheila Engelmeier, Minn. Law. (Apr. 28, 2022). That belief, that there is always a better way to resolve conflict, animates everything she does in the mediation room.
Watching Sheila work has changed how I think about my own practice. She has shown me that the best mediators do not fit neatly into one camp. They read the room, calibrate their approach, and draw on a career’s worth of experience to know when to ask and when to tell, when to listen and when to push. Sheila does all of this with a rare combination of intellectual rigor, warmth, and tenacity. It is a privilege to learn from her, and Minnesota’s legal community is fortunate to have her.
Jen Henderson is a former Global Senior Director at Cargill, and a former General Counsel, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Compliance Officer for start-ups and smaller international companies. She has put her suitcase in storage, and now happily works with Sheila Engelmeier practicing Mediation and Employment Law.