Elaine Wynn fixes her hair during day one of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's three-day hearing on the Wynn Resorts casino license at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center in Boston on April 2, 2019. David L. Ryan | Boston Globe | Getty Images

Wynn Resorts is taking an aggressive new tack with the Massachusetts Gaming Commission, questioning whether regulators are violating the company's due process rights and those of the executives and directors in a post-hearing brief. Wynn's suitability as a gaming license holder in Massachusetts is under review after a #MeToo scandal erupted around founder Steve Wynn. He resigned as chairman and CEO and sold his entire stake in the company within months after the Wall Street Journal first made the allegations and a $7.5 million settlement public. Last week, the gaming commission held three days of intense hearings into the company's qualifications, and that of its individual qualifiers including CEO Matt Maddox, the board of directors and Wynn's largest shareholder, Elaine Wynn. Regulators are deliberating the license now. A decision could come in the next few weeks. In a post-hearing brief, dated Monday, Wynn Resorts argued the commission has "impermissibly shifted the burden to Wynn MA, the Company, and Mr. Maddox to demonstrate why their 2013 suitability" should remain intact rather than investigators "first proving by substantial evidence that the licensee has failed to maintain its suitability by clear and convincing evidence." Last week, the Investigations and Enforcement Bureau declined to make a recommendation to regulators regarding Wynn Resorts' suitability as a gaming licensee. "Their license cannot simply be put on trial before the Commission without the IEB making such a finding and decision," the company said in the brief, calling it something "akin to the Commonwealth dragging a defendant into court and, rather than proving his or her guilt without a reasonable doubt, requiring the defendant to prove [italics theirs] his or her innocence. " During last week's hearing, the company was caught off-guard when questions were asked about facts not presented as evidence in the IEB's report. For instance, commissioners grilled Maddox about whether he knew James Stern, the company's executive vice president of corporate security and investigations, had monitored Steve Wynn's ex-wife Elaine, along with employees who were thought to have taken her side in her divorce and ensuing litigation against her former husband. Maddox denied any knowledge of that surveillance. Stern was fired on April 6, two days after the hearing's conclusion.

Wynn Resorts chief executive Matthew Maddox speaks during day one of the Massachusetts Gaming Commission's three-day hearing on the Wynn Resorts casino license at the Boston Convention & Exhibition Center in Boston on April 2, 2019. Boston Globe | Boston Globe | Getty Images

The company defended Maddox in the brief, calling into question how the commission is applying the standard of suitability as "one that judges his leadership, which is not a statutory criterion in the Gaming Act and was not mentioned at all in the IEB Report." Commissioners were especially tough in their questioning of Maddox, Steve Wynn's protegee and appointed successor. Maddox has repeatedly denied knowledge of the litany of complaints by employees against Steve Wynn. Commissioner Gayle Cameron challenged Maddox's leadership and judgement by asking what it says about his leadership that so many people kept him in the dark. Cameron had formerly been with the New Jersey State Police and had been tasked with enforcing gaming regulations in that state. In its post-hearing brief, Wynn Resorts responded: "…the settlements were known to very few within the Company who worked in silos, meaning that some individuals became aware of certain settlements, but not others." In the hearing, when Cameron, said: "It seems to me that you were making excuses for high-level folks that had failed to do their job," Maddox answered simply, "Well, I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe you could characterize it as an excuse, but it was the truth."