Senate Bill 929, An Act Concerning Sexual Harassment
Policies in the Commonwealth, is before the Joint Committee on the
Judiciary. Senator DiZoglio and other
proponents want the committee to report it out favorably by the Feb. 5 legislative deadline for doing so.
Before she became a senator in 2019, DiZoglio served three terms in the House (2012-18), and before that she was a staffer in the House, employed
in the office of Rep. Paul Adams, a Republican from Andover, who served
only one term (2010-11).
DiZoglio was basically forced from her job after she and a state representative became the subject of rumors of allegedly inappropriate activity late one night
in 2011 in the House chamber – rumors later proven to be false. She got a raw deal.
As the State House News Service (SHNS) has explained, “Although
an investigation by the Speaker’s office found (later) that nothing
inappropriate" had occurred between DiZoglio and the representative, “DiZoglio’s
boss decided that the rumors and gossip had become
too much and he (Adams) asked her to find another job."
DiZoglio reportedly sought the assistance of Speaker Robert DeLeo’s office in finding temporary employment outside the
legislature. When that didn't pan
out, as reported by the SHNS, DiZoglio said she “eventually
decided to settle and take the small severance pay” offered to her.
Jump from 2011 to March 15, 2018.
On the House floor that day, there occurred what the SHNS described as “an emotional debate over the use of non-disclosure
and non-disparagement agreements in cases of sexual harassment and other
workplace disputes." It took place because the House was considering a package of new rules governing House policies and practices on workplace sexual harassment, including a new investigatory process for harassment claims. At the end of the debate, the House adopted the package on a unanimous 151-0 vote.
That day, Rep. DiZoglio stated for the first time that
she had signed her departure agreement containing an NDA in 2011 “under
duress.” She also said that “…on my way out the
door, I was hit with another surprise: the Speaker’s office would not release
my six weeks’ severance pay unless I signed a non-disclosure agreement
including a non-disparagement agreement that legally bound me from discussing
what happened and from criticizing any past, present or future elected members
of the House. I hesitated for days
because I did not want to sign this document.
With my money running out quickly, however, I didn’t feel I had another
option, so I signed under duress.”
Now jump to the event on S.929 this past Monday at the State House. There, DiZoglio said:
“Your Speaker lied to you and put you in a very bad
position, both by unequivocally denying that he has given out NDAs for anything
related to sexual harassment, when I have one from his office and my circumstances
were widely publicized, leading up to my wrongful termination, and also by
exploiting victims’ need for confidentiality, to convince you, during a rushed
and emotional debate, to allow these agreements to continue to be used by his
office and elsewhere in our government.” [Source: SHNS]
Not for the first time, DeLeo took exception to
an account of events by DiZoglio.
On Monday, the Speaker's office released a lengthy statement
defending and explaining his (and the House’s) administrative actions pertaining
to DiZoglio’s 2011 termination.
The statement emphasized that “…any pressure Senator DiZoglio felt to sign the termination and severance agreement did not – and could not have – come from any House member or employee.”
The statement emphasized that “…any pressure Senator DiZoglio felt to sign the termination and severance agreement did not – and could not have – come from any House member or employee.”
The complete text of the Speaker's statement follows:
“Senator DiZoglio’s former supervisor in the House – a
Republican Member of the House – unilaterally terminated Senator DiZoglio
without the knowledge of the Speaker, House Human Resources, or House Counsel.
“After Senator DiZoglio was terminated by her supervisor,
the House was contacted by a private attorney who represented Senator DiZoglio.
The House and Senator DiZoglio’s attorney then negotiated a mutually acceptable
termination and severance agreement that provided Senator DiZoglio with six
weeks of severance. It is the policy of the House to provide all terminated
employees with two weeks of severance, so Senator DiZoglio received an
additional four weeks of severance.
“At no time did any House member or employee involved in
the negotiations communicate directly with Senator DiZoglio about said
negotiations. All communications were with her private attorney. As such, any
pressure Senator DiZoglio felt to sign the termination and severance agreement
did not—and could not have—come from any House member or employee involved in
the negotiations.
“It is also important to point out that at no time,
either during her employment with the House or after her termination from the
House, did Senator DiZoglio or her private attorney ever allege that she had
been a victim of sexual harassment until March of 2018, when Sen. DiZoglio made
her experience public.
“Over the past three years, the House took decisive
action and immediately ordered an in-depth review of the House’s human
resources function. As a result of that study, the House adopted a set of
comprehensive human resources reforms including the creation of a new,
independent Equal Employment Opportunity Officer (EEO) to ensure a
professional working environment for all employees and visitors to the House.
“House rules also now include a process for executing any
legal agreements by the House including a stringent process for executing ‘any
agreement to settle any legal claim or potential legal claim of sexual
harassment, or retaliation based on a legal claim or potential legal claim of
sexual harassment, by any current or former member, officer or employee.’ See
House Rule 100.
"House Rule 100 states that ‘[n]o member, officer or employee shall execute any agreement to settle a legal claim or potential legal claim of sexual harassment, or retaliation based on a legal claim or potential legal claim of sexual harassment, by any current or former member, officer or employee unless:
"House Rule 100 states that ‘[n]o member, officer or employee shall execute any agreement to settle a legal claim or potential legal claim of sexual harassment, or retaliation based on a legal claim or potential legal claim of sexual harassment, by any current or former member, officer or employee unless:
1. the request to negotiate said agreement was initiated,
in writing, by the person filing or eligible to file the legal claim or
potential legal claim or a person legally authorized to represent that person;
2. the person filing the legal claim or eligible to file
the legal claim is given 15 days to review and consider the agreement;
3. the duration of any non-disclosure or
non-disparagement provision of the agreement to settle the legal claim or
potential legal claim is for a finite period of time as agreed to by the parties;
4. the agreement to settle the legal claim or potential
legal claim specifically provides that no provision of the agreement, including
any non-disclosure or non-disparagement provision of the agreement, shall
preclude any party from participating in an investigation by Counsel, the
Director, the EEO Officer, a Committee on Professional Conduct or any law
enforcement agency; and
5. the agreement is approved in writing by Counsel, the
Director and the EEO Officer.’
“The restrictions on the use of agreements to settle a
legal claim or potential legal claim of sexual harassment or retaliation are
based on best practices informed by experts in the field including the National
Association to End Sexual Violence (NAESV), Pathways to Change and the Boston
Rape Crisis Center.
“As for agreements executed by the House prior to the
rules reform in 2018, none were to settle complaints of sexual harassment, but
rather a formalized process for providing terminated employees with a modest
severance benefit.
“Currently, the House employs approximately 480 people
(not including members). Since January 1, 2010 through today, more than 1,040
employees have concluded their employment with the House of Representatives. Of
those, approximately 155 had their employment terminated by the House (or
separated from employment in some way other than a voluntary resignation). Of
those 155 employees, approximately 33 individuals (3 percent of all those
concluding their employment with the House during this period) were offered a
small severance payment in exchange for executing a written agreement
containing a nondisclosure agreement. Of these 33 agreements, 15 agreements
were executed with employees who were laid off as part of a reduction in force
in December 2009. These agreements were included because, while the layoffs
took effect in 2009, the severance for the affected employees continued until
early January. The House has not executed an agreement with any current or
former employee that contains a non-disclosure agreement since the adoption of
House Rule 100.”
