THE MBTA HAS sued a union representing inspectors who work for the transit agency, arguing the T should be able to fire a supervisor who the agency says engaged in sexual and racial harassment. 

The complaint, filed in Suffolk Superior Court on June 9, details allegations of misconduct and the MBTA’s firing of the supervisor, Patrick Goggin, a former chief inspector. 

The OPEIU MBTA Inspector’s Union Local 600, of which Goggin is a member, fought the firing and took the transit agency to arbitration, a dispute resolution procedure allowed under the collective bargaining agreement between the agency and the union. The union won reinstatement for Goggin, leading to the MBTA’s lawsuit. 

After a hearing held over several days last year, an arbitrator declared in May that the T had “sufficiently proven” Goggin committed the misconduct in violation of the agency’s rules and zero-tolerance policies, and the T had “just cause” to discipline him, according to the MBTA’s complaint. 

But the arbitrator nonetheless ordered the T to reinstate the supervisor to his former position, or an equivalent one, without back pay, ruling that firing him was too severe a penalty. In doing so, the arbitrator “exceeded his authority” and the decision “violates public policy and is otherwise contrary to law and therefore unenforceable,” the MBTA’s attorneys argued in the complaint. 

An MBTA spokesman declined to comment, citing pending litigation. A lawyer for the union, Daniel Fogarty, did not respond to a request for comment, nor did a union official. Goggin was unreachable for comment. 

The case is an example of the sort of outcome of the arbitration process, particularly in the public sector, that has drawn criticism from those who say it makes it too difficult to fire employees who have engaged in what appears to be egregious misconduct or poor performance. In a prominent recent example, a Boston police officer who was fired twice based on separate incidents still got his job back after taking the matter to arbitration. 

“It’s a real problem, a cost of union representation,” said Samuel Estreicher, director of the Center for Labor and Employment Law at New York University. “If the union mounts a vigorous defense, the arbitrator will be reluctant to sustain the discharge unless the culprit is a serious repeat offender.” 

The T’s complaint attached the arbitrator’s summary of the two sides’ arguments in laying out his decision. The union argued the T “failed to prove” that Goggin made a sexual comment to a subordinate, and her version of what was said was “inconsistent and undermines her credibility,” according to the summary. Meanwhile, others who complained about Goggin, the summary of the union argument said, had “motive to advance false allegations” against him. 

The MBTA also didn’t produce sufficient evidence to establish that Goggin treated women of color differently, the union added. 

Goggin served as chief inspector on the T’s Red Line since 2018, a position of “significant responsibility,” according to the T. Chief inspectors manage crews, handle schedules, and respond to incidents and emergencies. 

A subordinate employee lodged a complaint in July 2022, alleging “she and other Black co-workers had been subjected to discriminatory and inappropriate behavior and harassment by Mr. Goggin on the basis of gender and race,” the T’s lawsuit said. 

T officials investigated the complaint and found that Goggin “made an inappropriate comment of a sexual nature about a female subordinate’s breasts … and that he treated female employees of color differently than others, holding them to stricter standards of conduct,” according to the complaint, which also cited “prior disciplinary history.” 

As part of the arbitration process, an arbitrator, John Marra, was hired after the T moved to fire Goggin. The arbitrator found Goggin’s denials “not credible,” and credited testimony from witnesses that Goggin would “make obscene gestures at work,” refer to his penis size, and call women “bitches,” according to the T’s lawsuit. 

But the arbitrator added that the T’s move to fire him was “too severe and not appropriate,” and ordered the agency to reinstate him. The arbitrator said there was “no evidence” that Goggin had been informed by management that his behavior was inappropriate and offensive, and that his job was in jeopardy.  

In its complaint, the T claimed that in a separate incident Goggin received a written warning in October 2020 after allegedly telling a Black female subordinate to get “[her] ass back on” on a train, and when she said she needed to use to restroom first, he allegedly said, “[d]o you need me to wipe it for you?” 

“By concluding that even though there was just cause to discipline Mr. Goggin for his proven and unremorseful violations of the MBTA’s anti-discrimination policies and other rules of behavioral conduct, Mr. Goggin should be reinstated to his supervisory position, the Arbitrator has fashioned a remedy that is inconsistent with the MBTA’s legal obligations to take prompt and effective measures to effectively correct and address discriminator harassment,” the T’s complaint said. 

Marra, the arbitrator, concluded that the T “properly conducted” an investigation, seeking statements from other T employees. “The Union makes a compelling case that the arbitrator should not rely on hearsay evidence,” Marra wrote. “However, in the interest of a fair result, arbitrators may consider hearsay evidence in order to obtain the most complete view of the facts.” 

The hearsay was corroborated by testimony and witness accounts, Marra added.  

Goggin’s “actions fell short of the high standards” expected of a chief inspector and showed no remorse, Marra said. But firing him is “too severe,” given his work history, and nine years of employment, during which Goggin earned several promotions.