MAXIMUS, Inc. | Racial Equity Audit at MAXIMUS, Inc.

Status
64.26% votes in favour
AGM date
Proposal number
4
Resolution details
Company ticker
MMS
Lead filer
SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust (Delisted)
Resolution ask
Conduct due diligence, audit or risk/impact assessment
ESG theme
  • Social
ESG sub-theme
  • Diversity, equity & inclusion (DEI)
Type of vote
Shareholder proposal
Filer type
Shareholder
Company sector
Health Care
Company HQ country
United States
Resolved clause
Service Employees International Union has filed the following resolution. This will be updated in the lead filer field as soon as possible.

That shareholders of MAXIMUS, Inc. (“MAXIMUS”) urge the Board of Directors to oversee a third-party racial equity audit analyzing MAXIMUS’s impacts on nonwhite stakeholders and communities of color. Input from civil rights organizations and employees should be considered in determining the specific matters to be analyzed. A report on the audit, prepared at reasonable cost and omitting confidential and proprietary information (including information relevant to any legal claims against MAXIMUS that are pending, or about which MAXIMUS has notice), should be publicly disclosed on MAXIMUS’s website.
Supporting statement
High-profile police killings of black people have galvanized the movement for racial justice. That movement, together with the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, has focused the attention of media, the public and policy makers on systemic racism, racialized violence and inequities in employment, health care, and the criminal justice system.
Several aspects of MAXIMUS’s business and operations suggest that a racial equity audit would be useful. MAXIMUS describes itself as a “leading operator of government health and human services programs worldwide,” primarily “business process services (BPS) in the health services and human services markets.”1 Subpar administration of such services can disproportionately affect people of color.
For example, Black and Hispanic people are overrepresented among the uninsured in Tennessee,2 and MAXIMUS has come under fire for the number of children purged from Tennessee’s Medicaid program, for which MAXIMUS made eligibility determinations; state representatives called for an audit of MAXIMUS’s work, citing “grave concerns.”3 MAXIMUS determines Medicaid eligibility in 13 states, including California and New York.4 Similarly, MAXIMUS processes applications for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”),5 35% of whose recipients are Black or Hispanic.6
Issues involving MAXIMUS’s workforce may have racial equity implications. A federal judge in Louisiana recently denied MAXIMUS’s motion to find in its favor without a trial on a Black former employee’s claims that he was fired after “falsely being accused of a pattern of behavior as a big angry Black man” and complaining to the company’s ethics hotline about his supervisor’s treatment.7 MAXIMUS employees have protested the company’s policies regarding sick and caregiver leave during the COVID-19 pandemic,8 which has disproportionately affected people of color.9
Finally, MAXIMUS’s lobbying activities may cause adverse racial impacts. In 2020, the most recent year for which full data is available, MAXIMUS reported lobbying on bills dealing with COVID-19 relief, the SNAP program, and criminal justice issues.10 Current rules do not require MAXIMUS to disclose the positions it took on legislation, but those positions may be inconsistent with a commitment to racial equity.
For the above reasons, MAXIMUS should assess its behavior through a racial equity lens to identify how it contributes to systemic racism and could begin to help dismantle it.

DISCLAIMER: By including a shareholder resolution or management proposal in this database, neither the PRI nor the sponsor of the resolution or proposal is seeking authority to act as proxy for any shareholder; shareholders should vote their proxies in accordance with their own policies and requirements.

Any voting recommendations set forth in the descriptions of the resolutions and management proposals included in this database are made by the sponsors of those resolutions and proposals, and do not represent the views of the PRI.

Information on the shareholder resolutions, management proposals and votes in this database have been obtained from sources that are believed to be reliable, but the PRI does not represent that it is accurate, complete, or up-to-date, including information relating to resolutions and management proposals, other signatories’ vote pre-declarations (including voting rationales), or the current status of a resolution or proposal. You should consult companies’ proxy statements for complete information on all matters to be voted on at a meeting.