IN THE MATTER OF:
Thomas D. Coates, Claimant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD | DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]
IN THE MATTER OF:
Thomas D. Coates, Complainant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD | DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]
Date: June 11, 2025
To: Mrs. Elizabeth Rader, District Director, Charlotte District Office
Cc: Ms. Veronica Chaney, District Director’s Secretary
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
129 W. Trade Street, Ste. 400
Charlotte, NC 28202
veronica.chaney@eeoc.gov
There are moments when the record itself becomes the argument—when facts, once gathered and aligned, reveal a pattern so persistent and disregard so systematic that the only just response is intervention. This submission is such a moment.
Following a verified medical separation, the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) reversed its denial of my unemployment claim. In doing so, it formally concluded that Cox Communications' assertions—namely, that I voluntarily resigned—were false. The legal and factual implications of that ruling cascade into every aspect of this case: wrongful termination, ADA interference, ERISA fraud, and retaliatory motive.
Within hours of submitting a written ADA accommodation request for a serious cardiac condition, I was placed on unpaid leave, locked out of systems, and stripped of pay. No interactive process occurred. Within days, Cox unilaterally reversed my disability pay status and proceeded to characterize my departure as voluntary. When I submitted intent to escalate the matter to the DOJ, my employment was coded as resigned that same day. These are not disputed facts—they are timestamped, emailed, and preserved in payroll metadata.
Cox’s unsigned EEOC position statement lacks supporting documentation, affidavits, or witness input. It stands in stark contrast to the administrative findings of the VEC, the MetLife STD reversal documents, and my email record—none of which Cox addresses or even acknowledges. The retaliation timeline is undeniable: a protected ADA act is met with financial punishment, constructive discharge, and submission of false federal claims.
The EEOC must not allow employers to insulate misconduct through silence. An unsigned narrative is not evidence. An accommodation process that ends in punishment is not lawful. And a resignation that follows agency contact is not voluntary.
The attached timeline, evidence summary, and sworn declarations—along with multi-agency submission—form a complete record of constructive discharge under ADA Title I. I respectfully request EEOC escalation to systemic and/or DOJ coordination per 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) and Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016).
I ask that this matter now be elevated for formal charge consideration, including referral to the systemic unit or DOJ coordination, in accordance with EEOC Directive 915.003. I am prepared to supply all corroborating exhibits and sworn declarations upon request. The retaliation I suffered was not a misunderstanding—it was a deliberate suppression of rights. The evidence is aligned. The law is clear. The question now is whether accountability will follow.
The Virginia Employment Commission, after reviewing the evidence, reversed the denial of my benefits on appeal finding medical separation, not voluntary resignation. For the VEC to rule in my favor, Cox's core assertions must be false.
Multiple emails show that Cox supervisors and HR did not even acknowledge my accommodation request for days, then terminated me within hours of my notice to contact the U.S. Department of Justice.
The evidence and documentation provided are not simply procedural, they are deeply personal. They reflect years of perseverance, repeated attempts to seek redress through every available channel, and the lived consequences of institutional inaction. This submission is designed to make the scope and seriousness of these violations unmistakable, and to ensure that every reviewer, whether legal, regulatory, or public, can see not only the harm but the imperative for remedy.
Each exhibit is referenced in the main body and indexed for immediate review. The cumulative effect is not only to prove the violations but to make denial impossible. This is a record designed to command attention, demand justice, and withstand scrutiny from any forum—legal, regulatory, or public.
With respect and hope,
/s/ Thomas D. Coates
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com | (757) 374-3539
Dated: June 11, 2025
Attachments:
(See main document for full exhibit list and supporting materials)
Cross-Agency Notification:
This matter has been formally noticed to the following agencies and organizations:
This submission constitutes Part A of a two-part memorialization and statutory reconsideration of both new and updated evidence relevant to Cox Communications' April 2025 Position Statement and all associated representations, system transactions, and correspondence.
Part B, forthcoming, will provide a comprehensive analysis of payroll records, the interaction of payroll with government reporting, and the impact on the IRS, Social Security Administration, Virginia Employment Commission, and the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.
This motion and its annexes are submitted for immediate transmittal and coordinated review by the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Justice, Virginia Office of the State Inspector General, and the Office of the Governor of Virginia, as well as any other oversight body with statutory interest in the matters described herein.
[Back to Table of Contents]
This motion concerns not only material statements submitted by Respondent's counsel in Cox's April 2025 position statement to the EEOC, but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox's principals, agents, and HR personnel in any form—including but not limited to:
These statements are contradicted by direct documentary evidence and constitute perjury, retaliation, and ongoing bad faith. The Claimant specifically objects to any attempt by Respondent to "fix" or disclaim only the position statement while leaving other false or misleading assertions uncorrected in the broader record. The evidentiary chain is intentionally intertwined: any attempt to remove or alter one "link" (e.g., the position statement) will not defeat the integrity of the overall record, as other communications and system records independently corroborate the violations and inconsistencies at issue.
[Back to Table of Contents]
This motion is submitted pursuant to:
The Commission is empowered to preserve and memorialize such statements as binding admissions, subject to cross-agency evidentiary review.
[Back to Table of Contents]
The Claimant respectfully requests that the EEOC and cross-agency recipients:
[Back to Table of Contents]
# | Infraction | Individuals/Principals | Records & Systems | Forensic Data/Discovery Actions | Testimony/Demand |
1 | Unsigned, Unverified Submission (29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(c)) | Justin Miles (Outside Counsel), Kia Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), Lakita Gaines (HR Lead) | Final position statement file; Submission logs (EEOC portal, email); Internal approval emails | Extract digital signature metadata; Pull all email chains approving submission; Identify all contributors and reviewers in document properties; Preserve all drafts and transmission records | Demand sworn affidavit from Justin Miles and Kia Painter attesting to authorship, review, and certification of all factual assertions. |
2 | Absence of Sworn Declarations | Kia Painter, Lakita Gaines, Inelyz Martinez, Donte Holmes | HR case files; Internal investigation notes; List of all managers/decision-makers referenced | Identify all factual claims lacking sworn support; Extract HR case file sign-off logs; Pull all internal emails referencing 'affidavit' or 'declaration'; List all witnesses for subpoena | Demand sworn declarations from each named principal for every material assertion made. |
3 | Verbal Conversation Claims Unsubstantiated | HR Manager (assigned), Kia Painter, Donte Holmes | Phone logs, call records (VOIP, Teams/Zoom), Email follow-ups, HRIS notes | Subpoena call logs for all dates referenced; Extract Teams/Zoom/Slack call records; Forensically review HRIS notes for edits/creation dates; Demand production of all contemporaneous documentation | Each HR principal must provide a sworn statement with date/time, attendees, and substance of every referenced conversation. |
4 | Contradictory Payroll Statements | Payroll Administrator, MetLife Coordinator, Ursula Rogers | Payroll system logs (Workday, ADP), Paystubs, IRS filings, MetLife STD claim records | Pull all paystubs and payroll logs for relevant periods; Compare payroll to MetLife claim periods; Extract IRS/SSA reporting for same intervals; Forensically analyze 'Stay Pay' entries and zeroed-out pay | Sworn payroll administrator and MetLife coordinator testimony on all entries, discrepancies, and reporting. |
5 | Fabricated Access/Return Narrative | Jennifer Melton, Inelyz Martinez | Physician RTW letters, ADA accommodation forms, HRIS access logs | Extract and compare all RTW documentation; Audit HRIS access block/restore records; Subpoena physician communications | Testimony from HR and medical contacts on RTW instructions, access restoration, and timeline. |
6 | Improper Footnotes to Disclaim Responsibility | Justin Miles (author), Cox Legal Team | Drafts of position statement, Email chains about footnotes, Internal legal review notes | Demand production of all drafts and revision history; Identify all contributors to disclaimers; Subpoena legal team for rationale behind disclaimers | Sworn affidavit from each legal drafter as to accuracy and intent of disclaimers. |
7 | Misrepresentation of Performance Records | Donte Holmes, Scorecard Administrator, Performance Coach | Scorecard logs, Performance review emails, Accommodation request records | Pull all performance review drafts and final versions; Audit for edits after accommodation requests; Compare timeline to ADA/FMLA requests | Sworn testimony from all reviewers on content, timing, and knowledge of accommodations. |
8 | Disregard of Disability Status in Harassment Claims | Supervisors, HR Compliance, Jennifer Melton | Medical records, Email notifications, HR complaint logs | Extract all emails referencing disability or ADA; Audit HR complaint system for entries and responses; Subpoena supervisors for knowledge and response | Testimony from all involved on knowledge of disability and steps taken. |
9 | Absence of Internal Investigation or Documentation | Lakita Gaines, Internal HR Compliance Officer, Ursula Rogers | Internal investigation files, Interview notes, HRIS audit logs | Demand all investigation notes and logs; Subpoena all interview participants; Forensically review HRIS for undeclared edits | Sworn affidavits from all compliance officers regarding investigation scope and findings. |
10 | Improper Grouping of EEOC Matters | Alexander Perez (EEOC), Cox Legal Team | EEOC charge files, Internal legal memos, Correspondence with EEOC | Pull all correspondence regarding charge grouping; Audit EEOC and Cox records for consolidation discussions; Identify all legal team members involved | Sworn testimony from Perez and Cox legal on rationale, process, and due process compliance. |
All individuals above are required to:
Failure to comply will be memorialized as non-response, subject to adverse inference, sanctions, and referral for further agency or judicial action. This memorialization is ongoing and encompasses all conduct, statements, and evidence relevant to these proceedings, not limited to the position statement alone.
The following individuals are hereby formally memorialized as principals, agents, or respondents for all purposes of this record. Each has, at various times and in various forms:
Each individual named below is subject to:
Any attempt by these individuals to disclaim, fix, or distance themselves from the position statement, related communications, or system actions will not defeat the integrity of the memorialized record, as their knowledge, participation, and actions are independently corroborated by system logs, emails, and documentary evidence. This memorialization is not limited to the position statement, but extends to all relevant conduct, past, present, and future, that may impact the rights of the Complainant or the integrity of the proceedings.
# | Name | Title | Role/Context |
1 | Lakita Gaines | HR Business Partner (CCI-Atlanta) | Included in several email threads regarding Complainant's accommodations and return-to-work status; copied on EEOC-related correspondence; linked to Workday coordination and employee relations. |
2 | Jennifer Melton | Senior Manager, Employee Relations & Compliance (CCI-Atlanta) | Central in communications regarding ADA accommodations, return-to-work status, documentation demands, and Open Enrollment issues. Her Nov. 20, 2024 email initiated a last-minute RTW letter demand, leading to significant procedural conflict. |
3 | Keith Wilson | (Unconfirmed, but involved in Employee Relations or HR Operations) | Regular recipient of ADA and return-to-work correspondence. Referenced in MetLife coordination and ESC (Employee Service Center) exchanges. |
4 | Kia Painter | Chief People Officer / Executive Leadership HR Oversight (Cox Enterprises, Inc.) | Subject of high-level disclosures regarding ADA compliance failures, fiduciary responsibility issues, and ethical reporting obligations. Previously identified for SEC, CEI (Cox Enterprises Inc.), and legal oversight relevance. |
5 | Ursula Rogers | HR Manager or Advisor (Title inferred from correspondence context) | Referenced in oversight, coordination with MetLife, and ADA process execution. May have been involved in benefits and system-level HR data handling. |
6 | Azariah Workman | Supervisor or Frontline Manager | Played a role in sending Complainant home due to chest pain on June 28, 2024. Key witness in workers compensation timeline and early ADA health interactions. |
7 | Donte Holmes | Supervisor (CCI-Atlanta) | Immediate supervisor during key leave and accommodation events. Acknowledged out-of-office notices, and confirmed certain occurrences were logged as excused. |
8 | Sarah DellaVecchio | Manager or HR Liaison (CCI-Virginia) | Included in attendance tracking and Workday communications. Mentioned in context of reports and accommodation coordination. |
9 | Chauntriss Herring | Unspecified, likely involved in Benefits or HR Compliance | Referenced in previous correspondence threads related to benefits eligibility and Workday permissions. |
10 | Rachel Smith | Possibly Benefits or Legal/HR Liaison | Occasionally CCd in formal letters involving leave policy and disability-related case progression. |
All individuals above are required to:
Failure to comply will be memorialized as non-response, subject to adverse inference, sanctions, and referral for further agency or judicial action. This memorialization is ongoing and encompasses all conduct, statements, and evidence relevant to these proceedings, not limited to the position statement alone.
[Back to Table of Contents]
Preservation and Legal Notification:
This event and analysis are hereby entered into the permanent record for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 and all cross-agency referrals. All parties, including Cox Communications, its agents, and oversight agencies, are notified of their obligation to preserve all related payroll, system, and correspondence records for independent review and audit. Any attempt to amend, disclaim, or distance from these actions will not defeat the integrity of the preserved record, as the evidentiary chain is independently corroborated by system logs, emails, and contemporaneous documentation.
I. Factual Recitation
On June 28, 2024, Thomas D. Coates requested a confidential meeting with his manager, Azariah Workman, to discuss emergent medical concerns related to exacerbated cardiac symptoms and acute stress resulting from his son's illness. This request was made with the expectation of confidentiality, consistent with ADA mandates that protect medical disclosures.
Despite the private nature of the request, Ms. Workman summoned multiple individuals, including two of Coates's direct supervisors and a third manager who was not assigned to him nor previously involved in his supervision. This third party had no legitimate role in the matter and no permissible reason under EEOC confidentiality standards to be privy to sensitive medical discussions.
During the meeting, Coates disclosed that he was experiencing chest pains and acute stress. Upon hearing this, Ms. Workman acknowledged the seriousness of the symptoms and verbally stated that she was granting him two paid medical days off to seek care. She told him:
"I'm going to give you two days of paid medical leave so that you can go to the doctor and get yourself taken care of."
However, within hours of that interaction, Ms. Workman accessed the Workday system and suspended Coates's pay, a decision also reflected in PeopleSoft and Workday audit logs. No additional medical information had been submitted to justify this modification, and no new events occurred that would explain this shift. Importantly, Coates was not notified in advance nor given an opportunity to respond.
Furthermore, within 72 hours, Ms. Workman initiated a negative performance evaluation, directly following his disclosure and request for medical accommodation—an evaluation that appears backdated in the system and was created after she was informed of his protected medical condition.
He was not remunerated again for nearly 30 days, despite repeated efforts to resolve the issue with HR, supervisors, and internal support systems.
II. Human Impact and Statutory Protections Violated
What Should Have Occurred | What Actually Occurred |
Under 42 U.S.C. 12112(d)(4)(C) (ADA confidentiality), only individuals involved in HR or with direct medical accommodation responsibilities should have been present during any discussion of medical conditions. | A confidential medical disclosure was made in a compromised environment. |
Under 29 C.F.R. 1630.14(c), medical information must be kept confidential and separate from personnel files, and not shared without direct necessity. | A verbal accommodation (2 days of paid medical leave) was given but reversed within hours via a payroll intervention. |
Under 29 C.F.R. 825.302 & 825.303 (FMLA), when an employee discloses a serious health condition, the employer must facilitate—not obstruct—medical leave requests. | Pay was cut off immediately following the disclosure of a disability-related health crisis. |
Under 29 C.F.R. 1602.14, adverse action following the initiation of an accommodation or leave request triggers a presumption of retaliation, which must be rebutted with objective evidence. | A negative evaluation was initiated while the employee was under medical distress and after invoking ADA and FMLA protections. |
III. Statutory Violations Identified
IV. Escalating Retaliation After Protected Health Disclosure: A Pattern Confirmed by Internal Emails and External Findings
Cox Position Statement Claim | Contradicted By |
The position statement asserts that Cox worked cooperatively with Mr. Coates to facilitate his return. | June 28 incident where a medical disclosure was immediately met with loss of pay and negative evaluation. |
Cox claims Mr. Coates never presented documentation supporting his claims. | Real-time, verbal disclosure of medical crisis followed by payroll action before any documentation could be submitted. |
Cox claims retaliation claims are unsupported. | The temporal proximity of disclosure, retaliatory payroll action, and bad evaluation are classic but-for causation under EEOC Enforcement Guidance. |
Performance evaluation began after disclosure, not as part of routine process. | System records and audit logs confirm timing and sequence. |
Strategic Legal Containment: Statutory Violations, Procedural Failures, and Imminent Enforcement Risk
Under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), employers are required to engage in an interactive process and provide reasonable accommodations unless doing so would impose an undue hardship. Cox Communications’ actions violated core provisions of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A), which prohibits denying employment opportunities based on a refusal to accommodate. Their failure to engage meaningfully in dialogue, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3), coupled with coercive leave imposition and eventual termination, bypassed both federal standards and EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002 (2002), which mandates individualized assessment of accommodation needs.
These actions do not merely constitute retaliation—they rise to the level of constructive discharge under Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 (2016), when viewed in light of temporal proximity, escalating pretext, and emotional coercion. When an employee is pushed out through intolerable working conditions following protected activity, this becomes a violation of constitutional due process rights tied to employment, as recognized in Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).
Cox’s expected defenses—alleging poor performance, no formal accommodation request, or voluntary resignation—are preemptively refuted through time-stamped documentation, contemporaneous emails, STD filings with MetLife, and third-party involvement (including the DOJ Civil Rights Division). A clear visual matrix tracking protected disclosures, denials, supervisor actions, and termination dates underscores the chain of causation.
The EEOC now faces a credibility convergence: it cannot sustain Cox’s narrative while simultaneously ignoring its own reversal of short-term disability denial or its duty to investigate under Title I. If Cox’s statements are taken as truthful, then the EEOC must explain why it ignored MetLife’s findings, ADA regulations, and internal reversals that contradict Cox’s position.
Federal oversight by the DOJ, DOL Wage and Hour Division, and systemic enforcement units is fully justified at this point. Continued inaction would imply institutional neglect—not just by Cox, but by the agencies tasked with ensuring accountability.
Phase / Event | Legal Standard | Cox Action | Violation Triggered | Agency/Statute Breached |
Accommodation Request Submitted | 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) | Ignored for multiple days | Failure to accommodate | EEOC, ADA Title I |
STD Filed with MetLife | ADA + ERISA fiduciary duty (29 CFR § 2560.503-1) | Blocked / discouraged participation | Interference + failure to engage | DOL, ERISA, ADA |
Managerial Emails Emerge | EEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002 | Show active avoidance and delay tactics | Pattern of pretext + retaliation | EEOC, ADA |
Pay Cut While Awaiting Response | 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) | Removed from payroll, no hearing | Constructive discharge, lack of process | EEOC, Due Process Clause |
Outreach to DOJ/EEOC Initiated | Protected Activity (42 U.S.C. § 12203) | Terminated within 24 hours | Direct retaliation after protected act | EEOC, DOJ Civil Rights Division |
EEOC Accepts Unverified Statement | 29 CFR § 1601.15 & EEOC Intake Manual | No affidavit, no witness testimony | Procedural abdication of factfinding | EEOC Systemic Unit |
VEC Reversal Confirms Medical Separation | UIPL 04-01; Va. Code § 60.2-612 | Conflicts with Cox’s resignation claim | Proves constructive discharge narrative | VEC, DOL, EEOC |
IV. Pretextual Conduct and Contradictions in the Record
Cox Position Statement Claim | Contradicted By |
The position statement asserts that Cox “worked cooperatively with Mr. Coates to facilitate his return.” | June 28 incident where a medical disclosure was immediately met with loss of pay and negative evaluation. |
Cox claims “Mr. Coates never presented documentation supporting his claims.” | Real-time, verbal disclosure of medical crisis followed by payroll action before any documentation could be submitted. |
Cox claims “retaliation claims are unsupported.” | The temporal proximity of disclosure, retaliatory payroll action, and bad evaluation are classic “but-for” causation under EEOC Enforcement Guidance. |
Performance evaluation began after disclosure, not as part of routine process. | System records and audit logs confirm timing and sequence. |
[Back to Table of Contents]
This timeline meticulously chronicles a persistent pattern of misconduct and alleged actions, detailing specific events and communications that unequivocally demonstrate a profound disregard for the Complainant's rights and a manifest absence of good faith.
Proof: Contemporaneous email/text correspondence and Workday logs.
Proof: Workday system logs.
Proof: Email/ticket submitted to HR.
Proof: HR ticket logs and email chains.
Proof: Email chains, HR ticket logs, and screenshots.
Proof: Workman�s own system logs.
Proof: Documented correspondence.
Proof: Email correspondence.
Proof: Comparison of Workman�s statements versus Complainant�s documented record.
Proof: Complainant�s detailed documentation.
Proof: Correspondence and payroll records.
Complainant | Thomas D. Coates |
---|---|
Respondent(s) | Cox Communications, Inc., Keith Wilson, Jennifer Melton |
Jurisdiction | EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001 U.S. District Court (Potential Claim) Federal Labor Relations Authority (Unfair Labor Practice Implicated) US Merit system protection act (if US military employed with Cox) |
Date | Event/Action | Evidence Ref. |
---|---|---|
07/19/2024 | Complainant is told that his job may not be held if you took too much time. | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
12/30/2024 | "Unpaid leave of absence was approved through December 29, 2024. You were provided with clear instructions regarding the expectation that you return to work on December 30, 2024. You failed to do so.", | emails from Jennifer Melton on December 9, 2024 and December 31, 2024, and from me on January 1, 2024, Keith Wilson letter Exhibit 6A |
01/02/2025 | Clear instructions to return to work on Thursday, January 2nd, 2025. Unfortunately, you did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation.", Keith Wilson letter, email Ex 6A | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
01/03/2025 | Voluntary resignation" Ex6A letter, email Exhibit 6A | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
01/03/2025 | I will immediately fix it and present the full text directly on screen from now on, or I will provide HTML copyable code, never an image or an inaccessible format unless you explicitly ask for it. Ex 6A letter, email Exhibit 6A Let’s correct it right now. Here’s the full scaffolded, formal, detailed report based on your "Formal Demand for Remediation" email — laid out properly in clear, structured text directly here: | Ex 6B |
Statute/Regulation | Description | Policy Guidance |
---|---|---|
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) | Failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to find reasonable accommodation and the doctor stated to do so. | EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship |
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 | Retaliation for requesting ADA accommodation | EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8: Retaliation |
FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2) | FMLA violation. | 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) |
USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4311 | If US military, it is a violation of veteran rights. | U.S. Department of Labor Vets Guide |
Assertion/Statement | Source | Contradictory Evidence | Implication |
---|---|---|---|
"Your failure to return to work constitutes a voluntary resignation under Cox’s Unpaid Leave of Absence policy." | Keith Wilson letter Ex 6A | Did not have a clear conversation but continued to try and submit evidence. | It was a denial of reasonable action. |
"As outlined in our previous communications (including, but not limited to, emails from Jennifer Melton on December 9, 2024 and December 31, 2024, and from me on January 1, 2024), your unpaid leave of absence was approved through December 29, 2024. You were provided with clear instructions regarding the expectation that you return to work on December 30, 2024. You failed to do so. You were then provided clear instructions to return to work on Thursday, January 2nd, 2025. Unfortunately, you did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation." | Ex 6A | He wanted to submit documentation but was not being provided an opportunity. | His rights were being circumvented by a passive aggressive process. |
Policy Requirement | What Should Have Happened | Actual Action | Deviation |
---|---|---|---|
ADA compliance from Cox Communication | Cox Communication was suppose to engage in good faith interactive process to find reasonable accommodation. | But was met with a wall of paperwork. | The company and individual was not engaging in good faith |
Not retaliating against a complainant. | The company was suppose to acknowledge his complaint and take steps to ensure what happened to him would not happen to others | There was a denial of reasonable action, while also being retaliated against. | A violation. |
Name | Title/Role | Involvement |
---|---|---|
Keith Wilson | VP, Employee Experience & Compliance | Sent separation letter Ex 6A |
Jennifer Melton | CCI-Atlanta Ex 6A | Email chain Ex 6A |
Kia Painter | Senior VP of Operations | Not responding and therefore complicit |
Date | Filing/Agency | Case/Reference | Status/Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Ongoing | This complaint | EEOC Case No. 12K-2025-00001 | There appears to be non compliance |
29. NERC found that Defendant "requiring [Anderson] to apply for positions she was qualified for, only to deny her application with little to no regard of accommodating the lifting requirement in her current positions that was not listed as an essential duty/requirement was a failed accommodation attempt." Id. ", (Anderson Case) | Federal litigation involving | Sony Music v. Cox and https://casetext.com/case/nerc-v-anderson | Pattern of violations |
Date: [Insert Date]
To: [EEOC Investigator, HR, or relevant recipient]
From: Thomas Coates
Subject: Addendum � Memorialization and Challenge of Unsupported Statements
Purpose
This addendum memorializes and formally challenges 48 specific statements made in Cox�s April 2025 Position Statement that lack direct documentary support, legal anchoring, or are unsupported rationalizations. Each statement is referenced by page number. For each, I demand supporting documentation and/or a sworn affidavit. Where such substantiation cannot be produced, I respectfully request the statement be stricken from the record and that an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for making unsupported factual claims.
# | Assertion (summary) | Page | Challenge & Demand |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Claims are speculative and irrelevant overall | 1 | Demand: Produce supporting documentation or affidavit. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
2 | Cox provided �extensive� accommodations to Coates | 2 | Demand: Identify and produce all records or communications evidencing �extensive� accommodations. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
3 | Only denied accommodations outside company control | 2 | Demand: Produce documentation showing which accommodations were denied and why they were outside company control. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
4 | Refusal to return equaled voluntary resignation | 2 | Demand: Produce resignation letter or contemporaneous record of voluntary resignation. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
48 | Anti-retaliation policy compliance claimed without audits | 3 | Demand: Provide documentation of anti-retaliation policy audits or compliance reviews. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
Legal Basis
The EEOC and courts require factual assertions in position statements to be supported by evidence (affidavits, business records, or documentation). Unsupported or speculative statements are improper and should not be considered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and EEOC guidance on position statements.
Requested Relief
That each identified unsupported statement be stricken from the record unless Cox can provide admissible evidence or a sworn affidavit substantiating the claim.
That the record reflect these statements as unsubstantiated and improper.
That an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for any statement made without a good faith evidentiary basis.
That this addendum be attached to and considered part of the official record in this matter.
Conclusion
I reserve the right to supplement this addendum as further unsupported statements are identified. I respectfully request prompt action on this matter to preserve the integrity of the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Coates
June 5, 2025
This addendum expressly incorporates not only the Cox April 2025 position statement but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox�s principals, executives, and HR personnel in any form, including:
The record shows that multiple Cox executives and compliance officers, including Ms. Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), were copied on critical correspondence and were fully aware of the ongoing retaliation and ADA/EEO violations as early as July 2024. These leaders had both a statutory and fiduciary duty to intervene, investigate, and remediate upon receiving evidence of discrimination or a formal EEO/ADA request for help. Their inaction directly enabled the ongoing harm, and their silence constitutes a breach of duty under federal and state law.
The failure of Cox�s highest compliance officer to act on clear evidence of retaliation and ADA violations is itself a violation of law and policy, and raises serious questions about systemic compliance failures at Cox. This pattern is not isolated. If the Chief Compliance Officer and other executives can �turn a blind eye� to such clear-cut evidence, it signals a broader culture of noncompliance and exposes the company to enhanced scrutiny and cross-agency enforcement. This addendum is intended to serve as a model for escalation in all similar Cox cases, and to notify oversight agencies that these failures are not happening in a vacuum.
Each addendum submitted herein is intended to have independent legal force and effect, and should be considered, adjudicated, and preserved in the record regardless of the disposition of the main motion. The facts, legal arguments, and relief requested in this addendum are severable and should be ruled upon independently as necessary to ensure a full and fair adjudication of all issues presented.
The EEOC and all oversight agencies are specifically notified that the scope of this motion and all addenda includes the full web of communications, not just the position statement. Any attempt to �fix� or disclaim a single link in the chain will not defeat the evidentiary record, as the intertwined communications and executive knowledge establish ongoing, systemic violations and fiduciary breaches.
Introduction:
This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.
EEOC Standards and Guidance
EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements:
�A position statement should be clear, concise, complete, and responsive to the allegations. It should provide specific, factual information, including documentation where possible, and avoid unsupported generalizations or conclusory statements.�
Source: EEOC Respondent Position Statement Guidelines
EEOC Enforcement Guidance (29 C.F.R. � 1601.15):
�Each party shall have the right to submit statements and evidence. The Commission shall accord substantial weight to documentary evidence and sworn statements, and shall disregard unsupported allegations.�
EEOC Federal Sector Management Directive 110 (MD-110):
�All factual assertions should be supported by documentary evidence or sworn testimony. Investigators and fact-finders must disregard statements that are not supported by evidence.�
Other Federal Agency Standards
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL):
�All findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Unsupported assertions or conclusions are insufficient.�
See: 5 U.S.C. � 556(d) (Administrative Procedure Act)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA Investigations:
�Each claim must be supported by evidence, including affidavits, records, or other documentation. Unsupported statements are not credited.�
See: DOJ ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, Sec. II-3.6100
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (Summary Judgment):
�A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by�citing to particular parts of materials in the record�or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.�
See: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
Professional Standards and Best Practices
National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) � Code of Conduct:
�Members must ensure that all factual representations and legal arguments are supported by evidence and are not misleading, speculative, or conclusory.�
See: NADR Code of Conduct
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.3:
�A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.�
Referral for Standards Review
In light of these requirements, I request that this addendum and the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) or a similar professional standards body for review. The purpose is to ensure that all statements made in the position paper meet the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and professional codes.