Maine Human Rights Commission finds reasonable grounds on one count in Graves v. Sodexo
Loading...
Summary
The commission issued a split finding in a complaint by Christopher Graves against Sodexo: no reasonable grounds on two counts but reasonable grounds to believe race discrimination occurred on a second count; parties will receive letters and next steps include possible conciliation or an adjudicatory hearing.
The Maine Human Rights Commission on Feb. 17 issued a split determination in a discrimination complaint filed by Christopher Graves against his former employer, Sodexo, finding reasonable grounds on one count alleging race discrimination while finding no reasonable grounds on two other counts.
Ashley Perry, attorney for Graves, told the commissioners that Sodexo relied on unsigned or contradictory disciplinary records and repeatedly sought to terminate Graves even after human-resources staff advised against it. "The facts of this case involve a clear ongoing pattern of disparate treatment, retaliation, and violation of both Sodexo's internal policies and the Maine Human Rights Act," Perry said, arguing the employer’s records did not match payroll data and may have been created after the fact.
Commissioners questioned how the evidence tied to race. Commissioner Douglas pointed to a line in the record he described as "we're gonna get rid of his black *** or words to that effect" and said that, combined with repeated efforts by the supervisor to remove Graves, raised concern. Investigator Carrie McCarter told the commission she had reviewed submissions and noted some inconsistencies in dates and evidence; she stated she had found insufficient evidence to recommend reasonable grounds on all counts but documented the investigative findings for the panel.
After discussion, the commission adopted a split finding: no reasonable grounds on the first and third recommended findings and reasonable grounds on the second. The commission recorded concern that respondent counsel was not present for the hearing; commissioners noted the absence on the record but proceeded with deliberations. The commission said it will send letters to the parties outlining the findings and next procedural steps, which may include conciliation efforts or referral for a public adjudicatory hearing.
The commission framed its decision as a factual determination based on the material in the investigative record and testimony at the hearing; it did not resolve the full merits of any private civil claim. The parties will be informed in writing of the commission’s determinations and instructions for next actions.
