Disregarding women

Just three days after she filed her complaint, Edwards sat across the desk from her boss, shocked at what she was hearing. MBTA general manager Robert Prince, she says, refused to make eye contact with her as he sat, facing slightly away from her, and read from a piece of paper.

"They called me up to [Prince's] office on a Friday, and they suspended me," remembers Edwards, who held the position of chief administrative officer at the MBTA for 15 months before her suspension. "[Prince] read from a script. He said, `You are charged with breach of management duties, so therefore we are suspending you with pay until further notice.' "

Edwards asked him what "breach of management duties" meant, to which she says he responded, "I'll call you later." Still, she says, he averted his eyes from hers.

MBTA undercover police officers and the director of human resources escorted Edwards to her office, where she was ordered to shut off her computer and collect her belongings.

"I left the office with no knowledge of why I was being suspended," Edwards says.

She and her deputy assistant, Wanda Nascimento, were escorted out of the building. The doors to their offices were locked, and their computers were confiscated. Nascimento was transferred to Charlestown and denied an explanation why. She filed a complaint of her own with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (MCAD) and was returned to her original job the next day, still with no explanation for the transfer.

On November 24, the MBTA offered Edwards's attorney a monetary settlement which included a provision that she not discuss the case. But Edwards declined: she says she came to the MBTA to stop exactly the sort of treatment of which she now believes she finds herself a victim.

If Edwards is proved right, her story would show that -- after almost two years of civil rights advocacy, federal discrimination investigations, and the intervention of the state attorney general -- the MBTA continues to be plagued by discrimination. Indeed, details obtained by the Phoenix indicate that the Edwards case is a sign of systemic problems the MBTA would prefer to keep quiet. According to salary figures compiled by Edwards and obtained by the Phoenix, women in management positions at the T are systematically paid less than men doing similar work.

Edwards says that when she brought this situation to management's attention, they were less interested in solving it than they were in quieting her.

Indeed, the T has yet to offer convincing evidence that its treatment of Edwards -- her suspension and subsequent firing -- was anything but retaliatory.

Factor in 47 MCAD suits pending against the MBTA, media stories of continuing incidents, and a critical report issued by a civil rights task force last year, and it is clear that the MBTA still has not decisively solved its personnel problems.

The Phoenix faxed to the MBTA a two-page list of detailed questions concerning gender equity, the existence of written personnel policies, and the Edwards case.

Prince responded that the "MBTA stands by its decision to terminate Edwards for cause" and denied that retaliation was the motive for her termination. However, both he and deputy general manager Phil Puccia refused to respond to the specific questions the Phoenix asked about Edwards and the broader questions her case raises (see "The T Responds").

The T's personnel problems first became public in 1995, when minority workers in the maintenance and engineering division began to speak out against physical assaults, verbal harassment, and frivolous suspensions (see "Whitewashed," News, February 16, 1996). In February 1996, the T struck a landmark civil rights agreement with the attorney general's office that established a $20 million fund to investigate discrimination charges over a five-year period. It called for policies and procedures to be drafted and monitored. The agreement was publicized in numerous press conferences, and the MBTA declared that the agency was finally on the right track.

But the T has not put the controversy behind it. On January 5, the T's fifth-ranking executive herself went public with her case. The MBTA quickly answered with its own statement, slamming her as a "rogue" employee who had been suspended and subsequently fired for telling fellow disgruntled workers to hire her attorney and sue the MBTA. Puccia, one of the executives named in Edwards's complaint, has sued her for slander.

The MBTA reiterates its position that Ms. Roberta Edwards was fired as Chief Administrative Officer because of specific misconduct. The MBTA stands by its decision to terminate Ms. Edwards for cause. The fact that she brought a complaint with the MCAD against two employees of the MBTA was not an issue involved in the decision to fire her. The MBTA firmly believes that once the facts come out before the MCAD and/or the courts, that the MBTA will be totally upheld in its decision to dismiss Ms. Edwards. The MBTA, Ms. Edwards herself, and the public would be best served if Ms. Edwards and her attorney let this matter be argued before the proper venue, which is either MCAD and/or the courts and not in the media. The MBTA will not argue its case in the media.

But Edwards, now unemployed, remains determined. "There's a principle here," she says. "I was hired to stop this kind of behavior, and if I quit now, it will just continue to go on. It's got to stop somewhere."

Signs of sexism

A veteran of eight successful years as director of finance and administration for the commuter rail division of Amtrak, she came on in the wake of widely publicized allegations that the MBTA had been mistreating minorities. It was her job to fix the problems, she says.

The new chief administrative officer, an aggressive advocate of equal rights and fair treatment for women and minorities, initially got compliments from her superiors for her hard work. In fact, Edwards says in her complaint, former general manager Patrick Moynihan even advised her to strive toward becoming the first female general manager. And Prince, she says, assured her that she was "there as long as he was."

After numerous letters and phone calls from employees documenting unequal pay and lack of raises, Edwards and her assistant drafted an executive salary plan to address the disparities.

Edwards attempted to define the problem by assigning pay grades to positions within each of the MBTA's five executive departments. According to documents obtained by the Phoenix, of the thirteen grades, only three showed pay equity between the sexes. At the other ten grades, women were paid between 2.4 percent and 12.2 percent less. Of the 477 management positions that existed at the time, 64 percent were held by men. And on average, women in management earned 17.4 percent less than men.

Faced with these dispiriting numbers (not to mention the possibility that her employer, already sensitive to charges of discrimination, might be vulnerable to a class action lawsuit), Edwards said she tried to develop a salary plan that would move things in the right direction.

Under her plan, each position was placed in a salary bracket based on grade, as is typical in civil service jobs. If an employee's pay did not fall within that span, Edwards proposed awarding the worker a raise to bring the salary within the guidelines. Even though her plan did not involve promotions, the overall gender difference in pay would have dropped to 16.7 percent -- not a large improvement, but a start

Edwards says that Puccia was unhappy with the plan.

Puccia then drafted his own version, changing the salary ranges for certain job titles. In the end, according to documents obtained by the Phoenix, the raises -- implemented in October of 1997 and retroactive to July -- actually made the gender disparity worse: on average, women in management now earn 20.4 percent less than men.

"Either way, it was blatantly clear that women were being paid less for doing the same work as men," Edwards says.

Puccia himself has five female staffers. When it came time for raises, three of these women were overlooked while others in the department received 6.5 percent increases. According to Edwards and four other employees, one of the other two women quit, and the fifth has spent time in the hospital for stress-related illness.

As Edwards dug deeper, she found that other female employees were well aware of -- and disheartened by -- the pay differences at the MBTA.

For instance, in a March 18, 1997, letter to the director of transportation support systems, one female manager pointed out that she was paid $14,000 less than a male employee who had just been promoted to a subordinate position in her department. It took nine months for the error to be corrected.

Even then, the woman was not compensated for the time spent at a lower salary. "Although I have brought the above retroactive pay issue to the attention of Ms. Casey Ford, Personnel Compliance Officer, Department of Organizational Diversity," the manager's letter read, "I was informed that there is no formal procedure in place to address retroactive pay issues."

And Cindy Gallo, head of the MBTA's medical department, filed an MCAD complaint on June 27, 1997, in which she detailed (among other things) how much less she was paid than male employees in similar positions.

In her complaint, Gallo noted that she spoke with Joan Martin, the T's director of organizational diversity, about the gender inequity. "After I outlined my concerns to Mrs. Martin, she told me that compared to most women at the MBTA I was doing better than average in terms of salary," the complaint read. "I responded by saying that I did not believe that to be the issue -- the issue was the disparities between men and women. I told her that I was particularly angered by the proliferation of promotions and salary increases for men in the last year."

Edwards says that Puccia's handling of the salary plan made it clear to her that the gender equity issue was not going to be properly resolved. She began to speak out at staff meetings, and the word got around. Women started approaching her for assistance with their complaints.

Employee advocacy

"It's just too much of a coincidence that my participation in Cindy Gallo's case marked the beginning of a campaign against me," Edwards says.

Cindy Gallo claims she began having problems with Puccia and Martin after demanding in the fall of 1996 that an employee with a violent record, who had been accused of sexually harassing female coworkers and subsequently suspended, submit to a psychiatric evaluation before returning to work.

"Unfortunately for me, Mr. Puccia and Mr. Barnes (MBTA director of labor relations) did not agree with the requirement that [the employee] be psychiatrically evaluated," read Gallo's complaint. "I was told repeatedly by Mr. Barnes that Phil Puccia was very `disturbed' with how [the employee's] case was being handled."

Gallo's reports that she was receiving threatening phone calls from the employee went unheeded. The worker, who she was told had "political connections," was finally discharged in March 1997, and the MBTA settled with Gallo out of court.

But the situation with the T worker wasn't Gallo's only problem. On February 18, 1997, the organizational diversity department's Martin had begun an investigation of Gallo. "Mrs. Martin told Ms. Edwards that two (2) `anonymous' telephone calls were made to her office regarding my `management' style," Gallo wrote in her complaint. "However, Mrs. Martin gave no further details."

In response to the investigation, Edwards drafted a letter to Puccia on Gallo's behalf -- only to be chastised for putting the situation in writing, says one employee.

"He said, `When I want something in writing from you, I'll ask for it,' " says the worker. "He never wanted anything in writing because he said it was like backing him into a corner."

That, says Edwards, is when Puccia started to give her a really hard time.

"He limited my ability to do my job. He verbally harassed me," Edwards says. "He wouldn't fund projects. He would reduce funding of projects. He wouldn't budget things. He wouldn't correct accounting errors. He wouldn't approve things."

One fellow employee says Puccia's verbal assaults on Edwards were common. "People at the MBTA love Roberta because she fought for their rights and brought them out of the stagnant environment they've been working in for so long," says the employee. "That infuriated Puccia, who in turn yelled at her and degraded her work on numerous occasions."

Edwards says she reached her limit on November 17, when Puccia yelled at her in a staff meeting. Several times before, she had contacted Oliver Mitchell, a member of the MBTA board of directors who spoke on her behalf when she was hired, to ask him to speak with Puccia about his oppressive tactics.

Now, she says, she went to Mitchell to discuss filing an MCAD complaint, at which time he confirmed to her -- as he had before -- that Puccia's behavior was a form of retaliation for Edwards's involvement with the Cindy Gallo case. Mitchell responds, "I sponsored Roberta. She could talk to me." However, he says he cannot comment on her claim that he said Puccia was acting in retaliation.

On Tuesday November 18, Edwards filed a complaint against Puccia and Jonathan Davis, the T's chief financial officer, for aiding and abetting discrimination and retaliation against her. The next day, Edwards told Prince that she had filed the complaint. That Friday, Edwards was suspended with no further written or verbal explanation.

On December 4, Edwards attended a meeting with Prince and refused to answer questions because her attorney was not allowed to be present.

William Mitchell, general counsel for the MBTA, stated in a letter to Edwards's attorney that "Ms. Edwards was specifically asked to respond to allegations that she had advised a management employee with a pay equity issue to bring suit against the MBTA." She was also questioned about referring other employees with problems to her attorney, Kevin Powers, for help in suing the agency.

Edwards can point to several flaws in the MBTA's allegations against her. For instance, she hired her attorney on Monday, one day before she filed the MCAD complaint. On Friday, she was removed.

Powers provided documentation that Edwards retained him on November 17 which means she had her attorney only four days before she was suspended. She was out sick for two of those days.

"I do represent lots of T people, but they all came to me before Roberts," says Powers. "They weren't referred by her."

Signs of retaliation

According to the attorney general's agreement with the T, "MBTA supervisors and managers shall be held accountable for recognizing, identifying, and remedying violations of employee rights."

The agreement states that "supervisors and managers shall be required to take appropriate steps to establish and maintain a workplace free of harassment, discrimination, or retaliation and shall be held responsible for the failure to take appropriate action to prevent or to eliminate the unlawful conduct."

"How can they say what I did was a breach of management duties when the AG's agreement specifically states that it is my responsibility to advocate for employees who feel their rights have been violated?" asks Edwards.

The MBTA has also so far refused to provide any specifics -- names, places, dates -- that would bolster its case and give Edwards an opportunity to respond in detail. T officials did not respond to repeated questions from the Phoenix.

But Edwards denies the allegations she knows about. At the time she was suspended, Edwards was told only that she had somehow breached her "management duties." Then, after the MBTA hired the legal powerhouse Bingham, Dana, and Gould to interrogate her fellow employees, the T contended that she encouraged T workers to sue the agency (using her attorney) and that she once referred to Moynihan as a racist.

The only time a class action suit was mentioned, Edwards says, was in a conversation she had with Moynihan.

"I told Pat and Bob [Prince] as my superiors, `You guys are vulnerable to class action,' " says Edwards. "I said, `You can't really continue to pay women 20 percent less than men in the same position and think that nothing is eventually going to happen.' "

Four administrative employees say they never heard Edwards advise others to sue the company or use her attorney.

The MBTA's investigation into the original discrimination allegations -- required under the AG's agreement -- was marred by a potential conflict of interest. Laurie Rubin, of the Boston-based law firm Peckham, Lobel, Casey, Prince, and Tye, was retained to investigate Edwards's complaint. However, Walter Prince, one of the firm's partners, had ties to the MBTA.

In a letter to Rubin, Edwards's attorney wrote: "Walter Prince is a partner in your firm. He not only is former general counsel to the MBTA but is also the first cousin of Robert Prince, the T's General Manager. If the MBTA were seriously interested in conducting an investigation of Ms. Edwards's charges, they would hire a firm with no previous connections with the T."

Unclear policies

The first meeting of the MBTA Women's Opportunity Task Force, for instance, was held on October 24, 1979.

Its job, according to an MBTA staff summary, was "to implement an affirmative action program for women" that would address promotion, recruitment, training, career planning, and management awareness training. The task force had four to six months to come up with a resolution -- which it did. The plan contained procedures and goals for the hiring and promotion of T personnel. It called for members of specific departments to monitor and evaluate the use of the new procedures. But that did not happen, according to a task force appointed last year, and no system to monitor hiring, promotion, and discrimination practices affecting women was ever set up.

The obligation to do so was revisited in the attorney general's agreement.

Until Edwards arrived, however, there was no salary monitoring system and many employees say the review process is still inadequate.

On April 30 of last year, the MBTA Civil Rights Task Force submitted a report after six months of reviewing the civil rights issues at the agency. What the panel uncovered was that the MBTA's "zero tolerance" policies regarding discrimination "have yet to be implemented in a meaningful way." The task force also found that the MBTA lacks written personnel policies and procedures. The task force found that the MBTA's workforce is 73 percent white and 79 percent male, and that the "Organizational Diversity Department simply does not have the resources . . . to meet the needs of the MBTA."

The department is accused of failing to properly monitor hiring, compensation levels, and promotions. It's because of such problems that employees file complaints with outside agencies instead of using the internal complaint procedure.

The T provided the Phoenix with a copy of an executive review form that agency spokesman Joe Pesaturo says has been used for 500 management employees since the summer of 1996. However, several employees say they never received a written review.

The MBTA also provided copies of two antidiscrimination, harassment, and retaliation policies -- one drafted by former general manager Pat Moynihan, the other by current general manager Robert Prince.

Both policies clearly state that managers and supervisors are responsible for receiving and pursuing reports of harassment, retaliation, or discrimination. The documents also inform employees that they have the right to file a complaint with either the MCAD or the Equal Opportunity Commission if they so choose.

Still, many employees say these policies are not enforced. Edwards, in particular, says her own case is a prime example.

Edwards stands by her claim that she in no way sabotaged the MBTA or individuals who run the agency. She will have her chance to confront the allegations at an MCAD hearing on January 23.

"I am not some guerrilla feminist distributing flyers with `Hate men' on it," says Edwards. "I am a woman who has worked hard to get where I am, and I believe that other women deserve the same opportunity without fear of losing their jobs."

As she talks, though, Edwards keeps returning to what she sees as the most bewildering irony of her case. She says she was hired to find ways to eliminate discrimination -- and then fired when she tried to do it.

Sarah McNaught can be reached at smcnaught[a]phx.com.