“The comments
of the two representatives that agreements were used by the House to cover up
wrongdoing are based on irresponsible speculation. The fact that the House
today enacted a provision that waives any non-disclosure or non-disparagement
provision of any agreement executed prior to today directly refutes their
irresponsible speculation. The rule adopted today specifically waives any
non-disclosure or non-disparagement provision of any existing agreement and
allows any current or former member, officer or employee of the House to report
or discuss a claim of sexual harassment or retaliation based on sexual
harassment.
“The
House along with outside legal counsel conducted a through independent review
of our entire human resources function. The review revealed deficiencies in our
current function and those deficiencies were rectified with today's vote. As
part of that review, counsel met with the Attorney General’s office to discuss
best practices. The review did not identify any reason to notify the Attorney
General, much less require the Attorney General to conduct a review, nor did
anyone raise a reason to do so today.”
Statement of Speaker
Robert A. DeLeo
Most importantly, as I informed the Boston
Globe yesterday, I would like to say that we believe Representative DiZoglio’s
statements regarding the harassment she experienced after the incident that
occurred in the House Chamber in April of 2011 and we are deeply troubled by
them. No member, officer or employee of the House of Representatives should be
subjected to the sort of treatment described by Representative DiZoglio.
That said, the Boston Globe has made a number
of unsubstantiated allegations some of which have no basis in fact.
·
To be clear, yesterday was the first time that
I or any member of my staff, House Counsel’s Office or House Human Resources
heard of the harassment Representative DiZoglio experienced after the incident
that occurred in the House Chamber in April of 2011.
·
Members of my staff, and Counsel’s Office met
with Representative DiZoglio three times in June of 2011 as part of the
investigation into the incident that occurred in the House Chamber that April.
At none of these meetings did Representative DiZoglio report that she was experiencing
harassment. She did repeatedly express concern for her job security and frustration
with the media’s coverage of the matter.
·
No member of my staff, House Counsel’s Office
or House Human Resources met with Representative DiZoglio on this matter after
the conclusion of the investigation June 14, 2011.
·
Despite being instructed to the contrary, Representative
DiZoglio’s then supervisor unilaterally terminated her employment on August 31,
2011. I reiterate, as I said yesterday, that Representative DiZoglio’s then
supervisor notified the House only after he had
unilaterally terminated her employment and that the termination was not consistent
with House procedures.
·
Within days of the House receiving
notification of Representative DiZoglio’s termination, House Counsel was
contacted by an attorney representing Representative DiZoglio. Her attorney similarly never raised the issue
of harassment with the House at any point in the course of representing and
negotiating for Representative DiZoglio.
·
While I cannot speak as to whether
Representative DiZoglio’s former supervisor instructed her not to talk about
the incident, I can say unequivocally that neither I nor any member of my
staff, House Counsel’s Office or House Human Resources instructed Representative
DiZoglio that she was prohibited from speaking about it while she was a House
employee. In fact, at the conclusion of the investigation in June of 2011, House
staff specifically informed her that she was free to speak to the media if she
wished to do so and, at her request, assisted Representative DiZoglio with the preparation
of a statement to the media.
Below is
the full statement provided to the Boston Globe on Wednesday March 14, 2018:
“At the outset, I would like to say that we
believe Representative DiZoglio’s statements regarding the harassment she
experienced after the incident that occurred in the House Chamber in April of
2011 and we are deeply troubled by them. No member, officer or employee of the
House of Representatives should be subjected to the sort of treatment described
by Representative DiZoglio.
“The incident that occurred in the House
Chamber in April of 2011 was investigated by the House. That investigation
determined that no member, officer or employee of the House had engaged in any
inappropriate conduct. This conclusion was based on interviews with several
witnesses, including Representative DiZoglio. Representative DiZoglio was
personally informed of the results of the investigation and expressed her
agreement with the conclusion. It was also our understanding at the time
that Representative DiZoglio appreciated and approved of the way in which the
House addressed the matter.
“At the conclusion of the investigation,
Representative DiZoglio did express concern about her job security as a
legislative aide. Because of her concern, and in light of the results of the
investigation, the House repeatedly notified her then supervisor that
Representative DiZoglio had not engaged in any inappropriate conduct and that no
disciplinary action was warranted or would be approved by the House.
“Regrettably, approximately two months after
the investigation was completed, and despite receiving numerous warnings that
disciplinary action was not appropriate, Representative DiZoglio’s then
supervisor unilaterally terminated her employment. It is important to note that
Representative DiZoglio’s then supervisor notified the House only after
he had unilaterally terminated her employment and that the termination was not
consistent with House procedures.
“Shortly after receiving the notification that
Representative DiZoglio’s supervisor had unilaterally terminated her
employment, the House was contacted by an attorney representing Representative
DiZoglio. House Counsel and Representative DiZoglio’s attorney then negotiated
a termination and severance agreement that we understood to be mutually
acceptable to both the House and Representative DiZoglio. At no time during
these negotiations did Representative DiZoglio’s attorney allege the harassment
you have detailed today on Representative DiZoglio’s behalf.
“It has been highlighted over the course of
the last several months that victims of sexual harassment are often reluctant
to come forward for a number of reasons. This matter appears to be an instance
where – unfortunately, but understandably – a victim has only recently become
comfortable reporting the harassment that she experienced. However, the fact
that this is the first that we have been informed of the harassment endured by
Representative DiZoglio does not diminish the House’s commitment to investigate
these allegations.
“As for your specific questions the answers
are as follows:
- Prior to today,
and specifically when she was interviewed as part of the investigation of
the April 2011 incident, Representative DiZoglio was adamant that no
inappropriate conduct occurred in the House Chamber. Moreover,
Representative DiZoglio was represented by legal counsel and to hear now
that she did not want to agree to the terms of the termination and
severance agreement is troubling. Her attorney competently negotiated the
agreement on her behalf and we presumed that his client was in agreement
with the terms.
- With respect to
the Representative’s contention that the nondisclosure and/or
non-disparagement provisions of the agreement were an attempt to silence
her and/or to cover up the harassment she was experiencing, we were only
made aware of her troubling allegations of harassment today by virtue of
your inquiry. Prior to today, and specifically when she was interviewed as
part of the investigation of the April 2011 incident, Representative
DiZoglio has been adamant that no inappropriate conduct occurred in the
House Chamber. Nor did she raise concerns of any other
inappropriate conduct at that time. Moreover, her attorney never
raised the issue of sexual harassment or inappropriate conduct/comments of
a sexual nature during the negotiations which led to the execution of the
termination and severance agreement. While we understand why a victim of
such harassment would fear disclosing it, we have to reject any assertion
that we were aware of it prior to today or that we sought to silence her
and/or to cover up any harassment with the 2011 agreement.
- Currently, the
House employs approximately 480 people (not including members). Since
January 1, 2010 more than 860 employees have concluded their employment
with the House of Representatives. Of those, approximately 150 had their
employment terminated by the House (or separated from employment in some
way other than a voluntary resignation). Of those 150 employees,
approximately 33 individuals (less than 4% 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.
None of these agreements were to settle
complaints of sexual harassment, but rather a formalized process for providing
terminated employees with a modest severance benefit. Since Speaker DeLeo was
elected Speaker, the House of Representatives has not paid any money to settle
a complaint of sexual harassment/misconduct brought against or by any member,
officer, employee or third party.
- The Speaker
believes that the Rules amendments that will be debated tomorrow will
greatly strengthen the House’s ability to address the issue of sexual
harassment specifically as well as other general employment matters.
Additionally, the Speaker believes that the House has used these
agreements judiciously in the past. That said, the Speaker is working with
the Chairman of the House Committee on Rules to prepare an amendment that
would do the following:
- While
none of the 33 agreements previously executed by the House were to settle
claims of sexual harassment, the Speaker’s amendment will require House
Counsel to waive any non-disclosure or non-disparagement provision of any
such agreement executed by the House prior to 3/15/2018 to allow any
current or former member, officer or employee to report or discuss a claim
of sexual harassment or retaliation based on sexual harassment.
- In
an effort to maximize the resolution options available for victims while
minimizing any inappropriate use of these agreements, the amendment will
provide clear guidelines for any future House use of agreements to settle
a legal claim or a potential legal claim. Specifically, it would
ensure that no member, officer or employee of the House can execute any
agreement to settle a legal claim or a potential legal claim of sexual
harassment, or retaliation based on a legal claim or a potential legal
claim of sexual harassment unless the following conditions are met:
i.
the request to negotiate the agreement is
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;
ii.
the person filing the legal claim or eligible
to file the legal claim is given 15 days to review and consider the agreement;
iii.
the duration of any non-disclosure or non-disparagement provision
of the agreement is for a
finite period of time as agreed to by the parties;
iv.
the agreement specifically provides that no provision of the agreement,
including any non-disclosure or non-disparagement
provision, shall preclude any party from participating in an internal House
investigation or an investigation by any law enforcement agency; and
v.
the agreement is approved in writing by House
Counsel, the HR Director and the (to be appointed) Equal Employment Opportunity
Officer.”
