TO: John Day, Acting Chief Public Defender

FROM: Erin Ryan, Director of Human Resources

RE: Investigative Report - Daryl McGraw

Background:

Daryl McGraw was hired as the Director of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) at the Division
of Public Defender Services on January 28, 2022.

Mr. McGraw was placed on administrative leave with pay (referred to as “suspension with pay”
by the Division) in November 2023 following a series of workplace incidents.
This investigator was assigned to analyze and investigate four (4) separate incidents involving
Mr. McGraw during his tenure as Director of DEI.

Issue 1: Joe Lopez Complaint

Joseph (Joe) Lopez, Director of Complex Litigation, filed an internal complaint contending that
Mr. McGraw made racist and inappropriate remarks about Mr. Lopez during an in-person
meeting on April 18, 2023. This meeting followed an email sent from Mr. McGraw to all
Division employees regarding “affinity groups,” and Mr. Lopez’s subsequent “reply all” to Mr.
McGraw’s email. Paula Lohr, Acting Director of HR, called Mr. Lopez and Mr. McGraw into a
meeting, during which Mr. Lopez alleged that Mr. McGraw made racists and inappropriate
remarks, such as referring to Mr. Lopez, who identifies as Puerto Rican, as “white,” referring to
Mr. Lopez’s job as “cushy” (insinuating that it would have taken longer for an African American
to earn the position of Director of Complex Litigation), and other race-based comments.

The Connecticut Public Defender Services Commission (hereinafter “Commission”) retained

Shipman and Goodwin, LLP (hereinafter “Shipman”) to investigate Mr. Lopez’s complaint.
Shipman determined that while Mr. McGraw did not violate the Division’s Administrative Policy
105, which prohibits “making derogatory comments (verbal or written), slurs or jokes about
individuals” on the basis of race or other classes, Mr. McGraw’s comments “were not made in
good judgment, given his position as DEI Director, and were interpreted by Mr. Lopez as
divisive.” Shipman also acknowledged that “tensions were high on both sides and this likely
affected Mr. Lopez’s perception.” Shipman concluded that it was “more likely than not that Mr.
McGraw referred to Mr. Lopez’s job as “cushy” or something to that effect, and insinuated that it
would be more difficult for a Black person to obtain that position.” While Shipman did not find
this comment rose to the level of discrimination under Policy 105, they determined that the
comment could be interpreted as divisive.
Issue 2: Facebook Post

On November 12, 2023, Mr. McGraw posted a meme to his personal Facebook page. The meme
included a photo of Mr. McGraw and promoted Paper Chaser Academy, an entity Mr. McGraw
later described as promoting financial literacy, and not associated with the Division. The caption
of the meme read, “[c]lubbing is for youngsters. Grown women want to travel, eat well, and get
bent over the balconies. #stepyourgameup. Paper Chasers Academy.”

An unknown number of Division employees saw the post and Mr. McGraw sent an “all
employee” email on November 15, 2023 to address said post. His attempt at an apology was not
well-received by many at the Division, and his email instigated a series of angry “replay all”
emails from Division employees.

The Commission retained Shipman to investigate this situation. Shipman determined that while
Mr. McGraw did not create the meme, he did consent to his photo being used in the meme and he
posted the meme to his Facebook page. Shipman found:

“In his initial response to the investigators’ questions about the post, he stated
that it wasn’t intended to be about “physical assault.” This response, which
seems to overlook the reason so many employees took offense to the post, along
with the content of the email he sent to the Division employees attempting to
apologize, demonstrate that at the time of the post and his email response, Mr.
McGraw likely did not comprehend the full scope of why the post was offensive.
Towards the end of the interview, however, Mr. McGraw acknowledged that the
post could be viewed as demeaning and/or sexualizing women, and that he understood
why it was inappropriate. He also acknowledged that posting the meme was a lapse
in judgment and said his email apology to the Division was genuine. While he was
surprised by the negative reaction to his apology, he says he now sees it was insufficient.”
While Shipman found that the posting of the meme did not violate any Division policy, Shipman
did conclude that the post “was objectively and subjectively demeaning towards women and was
particularly inappropriate, given his position as DEI Director. The post was inherently disruptive
of the workings of the Division and likely rendered Mr. McGraw as unable to perform his duties
effectively given the substantial and material disruption his post (and subsequent e-mail
purportedly apologizing) had on his job.”

2
Issue 3: Jeff Chambers’ Complaint

On November 16, 2023, Jeff Chambers, an Investigator at GA #14, filed a complaint alleging Mr.
McGraw acted in an inappropriate, unprofessional, and hostile manner during the GA #14 “Level
Up” trainings in the fall of 2023. Specifically, Mr. Chambers wrote in his complaint that Mr.
McGraw approached him in a crouched fighting stance and told Mr. Chambers to “bring it”
following Mr. Chambers’ disagreement with statements made by Mr. McGraw during the
training. Additionally, Mr. Chambers alleged that Mr. McGraw belittled and shamed him when
Mr. Chambers challenged statements made by Mr. McGraw that Mr. Chambers felt were not
based in fact.

The “Level Up” trainings consisted of four (4) sessions, each lasting two (2) hours, and
scheduled according to court location. In GA #14, approximately thirty (30) employees attended
each session.
On December 5, 2023, Ron Nelson, President, Local 743, emailed then Chief Public Defender
TaShun Bowden-Lewis, with a “cc” to the Acting Director of Human Resources, the office head
for GA #14 and an employee of Council 4. In his email, Mr. Nelson inquired as to whether the
complaint of “workplace violence, unprofessionalism and creating a hostile work environment”
had been investigated and whether anyone had reached out to Mr. Chambers. Ms. Lohr replied
that “we have been in contact with Mr. Chambers and are reviewing the situation.” Mr. Nelson
emailed the group again on January 29, 2024 to request a status update. Mr. Warner replied to all
on January 31, 2024:

The only update I can offer is that Paula Lohr met with me on either
12/6/23 or 12/7/23 after we had conducted interviews for our open
investigator position. Paula and I discussed what I witnessed and
corroborated Jeff Chambers complaint and raised inappropriate behavior
by Daryl McGraw during the Level Up training with other members of my
staff. Paula stated that she would be back to my office to meet with the
other employees who may have witnessed the incidents described by Jeff.
I suggested that she check the log sheets kept by Daryl to see who was at
the specific meeting that is the subject of Jeff’s complaint. I have not been
informed of Paula returning to my office to meet with any other employees
regarding Jeff’s complaint.

Interviews conducted by Deborah Sullivan and John Day

At the direction of the Commission, Deborah Sullivan, Director of Legal Counsel, and John Day,
Acting Chief Public Defender, met with seventeen (17) employees at GA #14 who attended the
“Level Up” trainings presented by Mr. McGraw. These individual meetings took place on May
24, 2024 and May 30, 2024. The interviews are as follows:

3
 • Nancy Boone: Ms. Boone was seated next to Mr. Chambers during the “Level Up”
training and stated that Mr. McGraw physically approached Mr. Chambers while saying,
“You want to go? Let’s go.” Ms. Boone said that employees would respond to Mr.
McGraw’s questions during the trainings and then get “shut down.”
• Hilary Carpenter: Ms. Carpenter said that Mr. Chambers was upset that there was a
presumption of racism and complained during the training, and this was not handled well
by Mr. McGraw. She felt Mr. McGraw was condescending and gratuitous.
• Bryan Habif: Mr. Habif felt like the training did not feel like a safe space and that Mr.
Chambers became a target for Mr. McGraw because Mr. Chambers’ views did not align
with the views held by Mr. McGraw. Mr. Habif said that the participants were not
welcome to have their own thoughts on topics. He reported that Mr. Chambers told Mr.
McGraw that he “doesn’t see color” and this appeared to “trigger” Mr. McGraw. Mr.
Habif said that Mr. McGraw commented that there could be a “Jeff day.”
• Meghan Kennedy: Ms. Kennedy stated that there was a lot of tension during the training
sessions, and that Mr. Chambers likes to speak his mind. She said that things got a “little
heated,” but she said that she understood Mr. McGraw asking Mr. Chambers to “step
outside” as a way to keep the back-and-forth from interrupting the class.
• Forte Ruscito: Mr. Ruscito stated that Mr. McGraw physically challenged Mr. Chambers
but could not recall whether Mr. McGraw’s hands were open or closed. Mr. Ruscito felt
that in previous sessions, Mr. McGraw would continuously “go after” Mr. Chambers,
even if Mr. Chambers tried not to engage. The environment was “pretty tense.”
• Pam Pasha: Several of the sessions felt tense; with his hands raised, Mr. McGraw said,
“Wanna go? Let’s go. Let’s go right now.” She felt Mr. McGraw was inviting Mr.
Chambers to fight. Ms. Pasha stated that the trainings were very uncomfortable and if
you didn’t agree with Mr. McGraw, he would let you know why you were wrong.
• Kalisha Raphael: Ms. Raphael said that Mr. Chambers did not agree with the training and
Mr. McGraw responded with statements, such as “this isn’t about you” or “this isn’t the
Jeff show.” Ms. Raphael stated that Mr. McGraw asked Mr. Chambers, “do you want to
take this outside?” Ms. Raphael felt Mr. McGraw tried to catch people being racist with
“a ha!” moments.
• Dean Velodota: Mr. Velodota stated that Mr. McGraw was aggressive in both his words
and stance.
• Mike Wagner: Mr. Wagner stated that Mr. McGraw made him feel embarrassed when he
tried to participate in the training, that he felt uncomfortable, and that Mr. McGraw
belittled other employees. Mr. Wagner felt that Mr. McGraw did not possess the skillset
to diffuse situations.
• David Warner: Mr. Warner said that Mr. McGraw mocked Mr. Chambers and said things
like, “I don’t have time for you,” and “do you want to come to my office, and we can
have a Jeff day?” Mr. Warner also reported that Mr. McGraw faced Mr. Chambers with
his fists facing Jeff and said, “bring it!” to Mr. Chambers.
4
Interview with Jeff Chambers, Investigator II

This investigator spoke with Mr. Chambers via telephone on December 9, 2024.

Prior to making his complaint, Mr. Chambers stated that he sent Mr. McGraw an email to notify
Mr. McGraw that he (Mr. Chambers) would no longer be attending the trainings presented by the
DEI department. Mr. Chambers said that Mr. McGraw did not respond, but that the former Chief
Public Defender, TaShun Bowden-Lewis, did send an agency-wide email stating that everyone,
including GA #14, was required to attend the trainings. Mr. Chambers said he spoke to his union
and was told he was required to attend, but that he could choose not to participate; Mr. Chambers
stated that Mr. McGraw made it impossible not to participate because he actively called on
people and required engagement.

Mr. Chambers said that the trainings felt like a “beat down,” he said that he has always held firm
to the belief that religion and politics should not be discussed in the workplace because people
have their own beliefs. Mr. Chambers stated that he should not feel badly for his own beliefs,
and he should not be put in a position to either defend his beliefs or argue with someone else that
their beliefs are invalid.

Mr. Chambers felt that Mr. McGraw did not maintain an open mind for other perspectives but
wanted to control the narrative and would shut others down if they disagreed with his
perspective. Mr. Chambers felt that Mr. McGraw was belittling and cited the “having a Jeff day”
comment referenced by others.

On the day of the incident of alleged workplace violence, Mr. Chambers said that he certainly
felt threatened when Mr. McGraw “got aggressive,” and Mr. Chambers described Mr. McGraw
approaching him from across the room in a crouched position with his hands raised and told him
to “bring it.” Mr. Chambers stated that although he and Mr. McGraw are roughly the same
height, Mr. McGraw has a more muscular build, and Mr. Chambers divulged that he was sixty-
four (64) years old at the time of the training.
Following the training, Mr. Chambers reported experiencing physical side effects and went on
family medical leave.

Mr. Chambers reported that no one from the Human Resources department reached out to him,
either via phone or email, regarding his complaint.

Interview with Paula Lohr, HR Officer

This investigator met with Ms. Lohr on December 5, 2024; also present were Renee Cimino,
Director of Delinquency Defense and Child Protection, and Filomena Aresco, Investigator III, to
discuss the actions taken by the Human Resources Department following the receipt of Mr.
Chambers complaint; at that time, Ms. Lohr was serving as Acting Director of Human

5
Resources. During the meeting, Ms. Lohr stated that she focused on the medical condition Mr.
Chambers referenced in the complaint. Ms. Lohr said the complaint was taken seriously and
handled with the “upmost urgency.” I questioned Ms. Lohr why Mr. Chambers’ allegations
regarding Mr. McGraw’s behavior were ignored. She stated that they were not ignored, and that
the former Chief Public Defender TaShun Bowden-Lewis made the decision not to investigate
the complaint. Ms. Lohr was asked if she agreed with that decision, and she affirmed that she
did agree. Ms. Lohr noted that Mr. Chambers subsequently applied for and was approved to take
intermittent leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act.

When asked if she spoke with anyone at GA #14 about Mr. Chambers’ complaint, Ms. Lohr
stated that she spoke with Mr. Warner and that he “believed something had happened.” When I
questioned Ms. Lohr as to why Mr. Warner’s statement did not prompt further inquiry into the
complaint, Ms. Lohr clarified that Mr. Warner wasn’t sure if it was anything or if it was just part
of the training. It should be noted that Ms. Lohr was copied on the email Mr. Warner sent to Mr.
Nelson on January 31, 2024, in which Mr. Warner wrote that he witnessed and corroborated Mr.
Chambers’ complaint.

When asked how a complaint is typically closed, Ms. Lohr stated that she typically sends out a
notice to the complainant. That did not happen in this situation; the only documented
communication available to this investigator between Ms. Lohr and the complainant occurred on
November 20, 2023, when Mr. Chambers reached out to Ms. Lohr to request FMLA paperwork,
and Ms. Lohr responded that the HR Assistant would send him the forms.

Ms. Lohr said she did not discuss the complaint with Mr. McGraw.

Interview with Nancy Galarza, Administrative Assistant

This investigator met with Nancy Galarza, Administrative Assistant, on December 5, 2024. Ms.
Galarza was hired by the Division on 9/22/23 as the administrative assistant assigned to DEI.
She stated that she attended the “Level Up” training sessions at GA #14 shortly after she started
to assist Mr. McGraw. Ms. Galarza stated that her role consisted of observing, handing out
notepads and sign-in sheets, participating in ice breakers, and other related duties. Ms. Galarza
remembered Mr. Chambers and said that he got very agitated and was loud and outspoken at
either the first or second session, and that he seemed uncomfortable with the material being
presented. Ms. Galarza said that his conduct made her uncomfortable, and Mr. Chambers left the
training early. At a subsequent training, Ms. Galarza said that she remembered talking with Mr.
McGraw about Mr. Chambers because he seemed to have fun and was participating in that
training session. Ms. Galarza reported that she remembered Mr. Chambers having an outburst at
either the third or fourth training session when Mr. McGraw was talking about an example from
his (Mr. McGraw’s) own life. Ms. Galarza said that Mr. Chambers would not back down, and
that Mr. McGraw tried to refocus the conversation back to the group; Mr. McGraw told Mr.

6
Chambers they could talk about the issue at another time. Ms. Galarza did not view Mr.
McGraw’s behavior as dismissive or aggressive, and felt he treated Mr. Chambers the same way
he treated all participants.

When asked whether Mr. McGraw ever crouched or acted like he was going to fight Mr.
Chambers, Ms. Galarza said that she never saw Mr. McGraw in a crouched stance like he was
ready to fight, did not hear him say “bring it,” and did not feel that Mr. McGraw was engaging
Mr. Chambers to fight. She said she did not recall whether Mr. McGraw said, “we can take this
outside.”

Ms. Galarza said that in her experiences with Mr. McGraw, he always treated her with respect.
She said that people seemed to have fun with him, and he was neither inappropriate nor
aggressive.

Meeting with Daryl McGraw, Director of DEI

On November 26, 2024, this investigator met with Mr. McGraw; also present were Renee
Cimino, Director of Delinquency Defense and Child Protection, and Matt Dyer, counsel for Mr.
McGraw.

Mr. McGraw said that he completed antiracism training with the Black Public Defenders
Association (BPDA), and the “Level Up” training was the product of nearly a year’s work while
he completed his BPDA certification. As part of this training at BPDA, Mr. McGraw said he
learned how to handle participants who may push back on the material, and how to make people
comfortable. He said that the information may be difficult to receive for some people, but the
goal was to enlighten and empower.

Mr. McGraw felt the audience at GA #14 was less receptive and more adversarial than other
offices. He attributed this to the former Chief Public Defender mandating that all employees
attend; when Mr. McGraw created the training, he envisioned the training as optional.

Mr. McGraw referred to Mr. Chambers as the “grenade thrower” and said that Mr. Chambers
interjected and pushed back more than anyone else; Mr. McGraw said that he suggested to Mr.
Chambers that they could have a private meeting to continue to conversation because there were
approximately twenty-eight (28) other people in the room and Mr. McGraw did not want to
continue to get side-tracked. Mr. McGraw said there was a visible frustration in the room
because of the non-stop back and forth between Mr. Chambers and Mr. McGraw, and the non-
stop interruptions. Mr. McGraw said that it was difficult as a trainer to deal with Mr. Chambers’
behavior, but that it was a component of the role and had learned about this through his BPDA
training. Mr. McGraw said that Mr. Chambers did comment during session three (3) that he
agreed with some of the material being presented.

7
Mr. McGraw denied ever approaching Mr. Chambers and said he was neither agitated nor angry.
Mr. McGraw said he does not believe he raised his voice as he is conscious of his tone, but that
he is passionate about the work and the training and may have had a “stern” tone at times. Mr.
McGraw stated that is a six-foot five inch (6’5”) black man and is in constant de-escalation mode
to monitor his behavior; Mr. McGraw found it offensive that this accusation against him was
made, and that it was offensive to label a black male as “aggressive.” Mr. McGraw denied every
saying “bring it,” “do you want to take this outside?” or “wanna go?” to Mr. Chambers. When
asked if he could have said one of these phrases in a joking manner, Mr. McGraw responded that
he uses humor as a way of engaging with people, but not on topics where people are triggered or
other serious issues.

Mr. McGraw shared that he never felt like a colleague or equal to his peers at the Division; he
said that people within the offices looked up his criminal history prior to his start and then shared
the information with others. He said he knew he was not the preferred candidate of former Chief
Public Defender Chris Rapillo, but that she tried to “set the table” for him so that the staff was
receptive to his messaging and role. Mr. McGraw said that former Chief Public Defender
Bowden-Lewis did not have this approach, and people said they felt as though Mr. McGraw and
his trainings were pushed on them.

Mr. McGraw said that he used the term “public pretenders” during the annual meeting in 2022
because that is a term commonly used in the urban community; he said that if he could do it
again, he would introduce himself to the Division in a different way because he had felt
frustrated and upset about the sharing of his criminal record in some offices.

Mr. McGraw feels he is being treated differently from others at the Division, as he is the first
person to be “suspended with pay” for an entire year, the first Director of DEI, the first impacted
person to hold a managerial role.
Mr. McGraw thanked this investigator for taking the time to meet with him to discuss the
complaint and said that no one from the Division had done so to that point.

8
Issue 4: Outside Employment

Mr. McGraw was placed on “suspension with pay” on November 15, 2023 following the posting
of the Paper Chaser Academy meme on his Facebook page.

After requests from the Division, Counsel for Mr. McGraw provided the following 8
engagements Mr. McGraw undertook while on administrative leave with pay1:

1. Addiction Trauma (11/23) - $1,500

2. Subject Matter Expert Addiction/Incarceration (2/29/24 – 3/1/24) - $1,000
3. Urban Trauma Training (4/17/24 – 4/19/24) - $16,000
4. Reentry Consult (4/12/24) - $2,000
5. Subject Matter Expert Addiction/Incarceration (5/6/24 – 5/7/24) - $2,500
6. Panel Participant (5/10/24) - $250 honorarium
7. Urban Trauma (5/24) - $1,250
8. Authentic Self Presentation (8/23/24) - $4,000

Administrative Policy 210 specifies that all Division employees “wishing to accept outside
employment must request approval prior to accepting such employment.” Employees other than
attorneys are required to obtain approval from the Chief Public Defender before engaging in
outside employment. In addition, Policy 210 specifically stipulates that outside employment
must be outside an employee’s normal work hours.

Mr. McGraw did not obtain approval for outside employment, as is required by Policy 210.
When Mr. McGraw was placed on administrative leave with pay, he was not given an
administrative leave letter by the then Acting Director of Human Resources. Despite this, Mr.
McGraw knew, or should have known, that the policies of the Division continued to dictate his
behavior while he remained a Division employee. Prior to his placement on leave, Mr. McGraw
submitted and obtained approval on at least fourteen (14) outside employment applications,
including applications for work to be performed both before and after business hours. In
addition, Mr. McGraw did not use his vacation or personal accruals to cover the outside
employment requests while he was on administrative leave; as he was not available that day if
called by the Division, he should have notified Human Resources and asked to charge his
accruals.

In reviewing the outside employment applications against Mr. McGraw’s employee attendance
report, Mr. McGraw was approved for outside employment on July 23, 2023 for the dates August
22 – August 24, 2023 for an event at a university. Mr. McGraw coded his timesheet as eight (8)
hours of VAC (vacation) for both August 23 and August 24, 2023; however, Mr. McGraw coded

1
Counsel for Mr. McGraw provided a ninth (9 th) outside employment engagement, the “Authentic Self Presentation”
at a local high school assembly on identity, with a fee of $1,000. The date of service of this engagement was March
29, 2023, which was prior to Mr. McGraw’s placement on paid leave following the Facebook post. An “application
for outside employment” was not found in Mr. McGraw’s personnel file to document approval of this engagement
and Mr. McGraw’s timesheet for March 29, 2023 is coded as eight (8) hours of REG (regular time).

9
his timesheet as eight (8) hours REG (regular time) on August 22, 2023. In addition, there are 4
dates in 2022 for which Mr. McGraw had approved outside employment yet coded his time as
eight (8) hours of REG – April 27, May 24, June 10 and June 16.

10
Analysis

In three (3) scenarios listed above, Mr. McGraw demonstrated divisive behavior and poor
judgment not consistent with DEI principles designed to make people of various backgrounds –
including socio-economic class, race, gender, and physical ability – feel included, supported, and
safe.

Regarding Mr. Lopez, Shipman concluded that Mr. McGraw’s comments to Mr. Lopez could be
seen as divisive and were not made in good judgment.
Regarding the Facebook post, Shipman concluded that the Facebook post was objectively and
subjectively demeaning towards women, was disruptive, inappropriate, and “likely rendered Mr.
McGraw as unable to perform his duties effectively given the substantial and material disruption
his post (and subsequent e-mail purportedly apologizing) had on his job.”
The ”Level Up” trainings at GA #14 were, by all accounts, tense and both Mr. Chambers and Mr.
McGraw felt passionately about the subject matter under discussion. Many of those interviewed
at GA #14 felt that Mr. McGraw acted in a condescending, dismissive manner, and some used the
word “belittling” regarding how Mr. McGraw treated Mr. Chambers. Several employees also
stated that Mr. McGraw seemed to “single out” Mr. Chambers. This type of behavior is
unacceptable for any Director at the Division and is especially troubling given Mr. McGraw’s
role as Director of DEI. Being able to effectively manage difficult conversations is a requisite
DEI skill, especially when those conversations may involve matters related to race, gender, or
ethnicity. The trainer presenting these materials must understand and appreciate how emotions
and perspectives come into play and how to mitigate to lessen the likelihood of negative impacts.
Mr. McGraw received training and a certificate, per his own admission, from the BPDA, and
spoke about how he learned to handle people who may push back. Based upon the interviews
conducted, this investigator concludes that Mr. McGraw became frustrated with Mr. Chambers’
interruptions and then acted in a dismissive manner towards Mr. Chambers; Mr. McGraw’s
possible strategy of trying to “make light” of the situation when he suggested “having a Jeff day”
did not mitigate the likelihood of a negative impact and instead made Mr. Chambers feel belittled
and embarrassed, as corroborated by other attendees. This behavior is unacceptable.

Regarding the “fighting stance” component of Mr. Chambers’ complaint, at least five (5)
employees at GA #14 in addition to Mr. Chambers reported that Mr. McGraw approached Mr.
Chambers in an aggressive, fighting stance, and uttered some sort of fighting words, such as
“bring it” or “wanna go?” Mr. McGraw denied ever acting in this manner and Ms. Galarza said
she did not see Mr. McGraw in a crouched stance or trying to engage Mr. Chambers in a fight;
however, based on the number of employees, all of whom were interviewed individually, who
reported a very similar set of circumstances, one can conclude with reasonable certainty that Mr.
McGraw did approach Mr. Chambers in a fighting stance and did utter some sort of fighting
words. While it is possible Mr. McGraw did this in jest, others in the room, including Mr.
Chambers, felt this was an intimidating act of aggression.
11
Regarding his outside employment, Mr. McGraw earned over $28,000 from outside employment
while also earning his salary while on paid administrative leave. Because Mr. McGraw
previously submitted outside employment applications, he was familiar with the process;
however, Mr. McGraw did not receive a formal letter placing him on paid administrative leave or
dictating the terms of his employment while on paid leave. Regardless, Mr. McGraw should
have notified the Division of his outside employment requests, especially when those
engagements rendered him unavailable to the Division. In addition, Division policy does not
allow an employee to engage in outside employment during normal work hours without express
permission from the Commission.

12
Violations

1. Administrative Policy 209, Corrective/Disciplinary Procedures

Administrative Policy 209 outlines specific examples of causes for disciplinary action, including:

• “[i]nability, failure or refusal to perform the duties of a position,”

• “[o]ffensive, indecent, abusive or improper conduct towards clients, co-workers,
supervisors, the judiciary or the public,” and
• “[f]ailure to adhere to Division policies and/or procedures.”
Mr. McGraw’s conduct towards Mr. Lopez, Mr. McGraw’s Facebook post, Mr. McGraw’s
behavior towards Mr. Chambers, and Mr. McGraw’s failure to obtain prior written approval for
outside employment all constitute causes for disciplinary action based on Administrative Policy
209. Violations of Policy 209 are substantiated.

2. Administrative Policy 210, Outside/Dual Employment

Administrative Policy 210 requires an employee to obtain prior approval prior to engaging in
outside employment. Mr. McGraw violated Administrative Policy 2019 when he failed to receive
authorization prior to engaging in outside employment while an employee of the Division. In
addition, Mr. McGraw violated Policy 209 when he engaged in outside employment during his
normal hours of work. Violations of Policy 210 are substantiated.

3. Administrative Policy 614 – Violence in the Workplace Prevention Policy

Administrative Policy 614 outlines the Division’s “zero tolerance” policy towards workplace
violence; the policy states, “[n]o employee shall cause or threaten to cause death or physical
injury to any individual in a Division office or facility.” Administrative Policy 614 lists
inappropriate behaviors, such as “[i]ntimidating or threatening behaviors,” and “[a]ny other acts
which a reasonable person would consider as inappropriate and/or posing a danger or threat of
danger/violence in the workplace. Such behavior includes, but is not limited to oral, written or e-
mail statements, gestures, or expressions that communicate a direct or indirect threat of physical
harm.” This Policy states that an employee suspected of a violation will be placed immediately
on administrative leave, and that violations of this policy may lead to disciplinary action up to
and including dismissal from state service. Mr. McGraw’s conduct towards Mr. Chambers when
he approached him in a crouched manner with his hands raised while uttering fighting words is a
clear violation of Administrative Policy 614. A violation of Policy 614 is substantiated.

13
 4. Public Officials and State Employees Guide to the Code of Ethics

During his outside employment engagement on May 10, 2024, Mr. McGraw reported earning a
$250 honorarium. The Public Officials and State Employees Guide to the Code of Ethics and
C.G.S. § 1-84(k) prohibit an employee or public official from accepting an honorarium for
participating in his official capacity. It is unclear in what capacity Mr. McGraw participated in
this panel discussion. This may be a violation of the Code of Ethics and C.G.S. 1-84(k) if Mr.
McGraw participated as the Director of DEI for the Division and not in his individual capacity.

Conclusion

Based upon the conclusions drawn herein, this investigator refers the substantiated policy
violations to the Acting Chief Public Defender for further action.

14