The Maine Human Rights Commission roots out discrimination based upon race, religion, age, disability or gender. While it can levy no fines, while it sends no one to jail, the board’s nonbinding rulings have great impact upon both litigation and reputation and thus are of great importance to those accused of bias and to those who claim to be its victims.

Which is why the commission’s finding this week that Fisher Engineering discriminated against Ellis Reid when it fired him a year ago is so confounding. By ignoring the findings of its own investigator, by appearing to act more on hunch than fact, the commission has hung the label “bigot” on the Rockland snowplow manfacturer.

Early last year Reid, a black man, twice got into fights after work with white co-workers. He was fired, the co-workers were not. The commission’s chief investigator, after interviewing all involved and exploring the case thoroughly, found no basis for Reid’s complaint of discrimination. The commission, which did not interview anyone at length and which explored the matter for all of five minutes at its hearing, found Fisher Engineering guilty of discrimination. Guilty with no opportunity to appeal and sentenced to go into court with the albatross of bigotry around its neck.

Despite the perfunctory nature of the brief hearing, the commission somehow found time to be bothered, deeply and profoundly. Bothered that no one else was fired, especially when one of the others has a criminal record. Bothered that the testimony gathered by the investigator was one-sided against Reid. Unable to see any other reason for Reid’s firing, commissioner Paul Vestal said later, “The fact that he was black fit the bill. We felt something was wrong here.”

Perhaps, as the commission’s own investigator concluded, Reid was the only one who deserved firing. Perhaps the barroom fights were after-hours manifestations of unacceptable workplace conduct. Perhaps the co-worker’s prior conviction was irrelevant. Perhaps the testimony was one-sided because Reid was at fault.

In a real court of law, all these uncertainties would be called reasonable doubt. When the prosecution fails to make its case, the defendant walks. Bills are not fit — facts are found. The accused is innocent until proved guilty, not until the jury feels something, just a vague something, is wrong.

Combating discrimination, or refuting false claims of such, is a serious business. The public expects the Maine Human Rights Commission to base its conclusions upon thorough investigations, full consideration of the facts and an understanding of the concept of presumed innocence.