•                                                                       


    UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

    NORFOLK AREA OFFICE – MID-ATLANTIC REGION

    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]

    NOTICE OF MEMORIALIZATION OF NEW EVIDENCE AND RECONSIDERATION OF UPDATED EVIDENCE (PART A)

    UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

    NORFOLK AREA OFFICE – MID-ATLANTIC REGION

    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.

    VEC Appeal Win Proves Cox's Assertions Are False:

    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.

    Legal Basis for Escalation: Retaliation, ADA Interference, and Constructive Discharge

    • ADA Violation: Immediate retaliation after a written request for reasonable accommodation, in direct conflict with 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4).
    • Constructive Discharge: Resignation forced under discriminatory and intolerable conditions, as clarified in Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547.
    • FMLA/ERISA Misrepresentation: Employer altered disability status and denied leave continuity, violating medical leave protections.
    • False Agency Filings: Cox submitted an unsigned, unsupported narrative to the EEOC and misrepresented facts to the Virginia Employment Commission and insurer.

    Pattern of Retaliation and Pretext:

    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.

    • Comprehensive Personnel File and Performance Reviews: Demonstrates a consistent record of satisfactory or commendable performance, with no legitimate basis for adverse action.
    • Medical Documentation and Disability Certification: Includes all physician letters, FMLA/ADA forms, and MetLife approvals, confirming both the existence of a qualifying disability and full compliance with all procedural requirements.
    • Chronological Email and Written Communication Log: A curated set of emails and written correspondence with HR, supervisors, MetLife, and agency representatives, documenting every request, escalation, and denial.
    • Complete Company Policies and Employee Handbook: Official policies on ADA, FMLA, anti-retaliation, payroll, and leave, juxtaposed with evidence of their violation or disregard.
    • Sworn Witness Statements: Signed declarations from coworkers and other witnesses attesting to observed discrimination, retaliation, or procedural failures.
    • Payroll and Benefits Records: Pay stubs, commission records, and benefits statements showing delays, discrepancies, or interruptions directly tied to protected activity.
    • Master Timeline of Events: A single, annotated chronology mapping every key action, request, response, and adverse event, cross-referenced to supporting exhibits.
    • Internal HR Complaints and Ethics Reports: All internal complaints and ethics filings, with evidence of non-response or perfunctory dismissal.
    • Agency Correspondence and Parallel Investigation Notices: Letters and emails to and from the EEOC, VEC, DOL, MetLife, and other agencies, documenting both your efforts and their responses or lack thereof.
    • Evidence of Pattern or Pretext: Documentation of similar cases, prior complaints, or shifting explanations by Cox, establishing a broader pattern of conduct.
    • Advocacy and Social Impact Materials: A 'Why This Case Matters' summary, any media coverage, and materials prepared for advocacy or public awareness campaigns.

    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:

    • U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) - Civil Rights Division
    • U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) - Wage and Hour Division
    • Virginia Employment Commission (VEC)
    • Office of the Inspector General (EEOC and DOL)
    • Social Security Administration (SSA)
    • MetLife (Disability Insurer)
    • Governor's Office, Commonwealth of Virginia
    • Selected national advocacy groups (e.g., ACLU, NDRN, Public Justice)

    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.


    Table of Contents

    • I. Introduction and Docketing Request
    • II. Material Assertions and Representations at Issue
    • III. Statutory and Procedural Foundation
    • IV. Relief Sought
    • V. Material Statements Submitted by Respondent's Counsel are Contradicted by Direct Documentary Evidence
    • VI. Narrative of Retaliation and Constructive Obstruction: The Azariah Workman Event - June 28, 2024
    • VII. Material False Statements Requiring Sworn Correction [Not found in content]
    • VIII. Statutory and Regulatory Standards for Veracity and Evidentiary Support [Not found in content]
    • IX. Professional and Agency Referral [Not found in content]
    • X. Addendum: Transformative Evidence - The Workman Correspondence and Its Ripple Effects [Not found in content]
    • XI. Addendum: Persistent Retaliation, Record Tampering, and Bad Faith (June-September 2024) [Not found in content]
    • XII. Addendum: Anticipated Defenses, Rationalizations, and Procedural Safeguards [Not found in content]
    • XIII. CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions in April 2025 Position Statement [Not found in content]
    • XIV. Declaration of Material Contradictions: MetLife Disability File versus Administrative Record [Not found in content]
    • XV. Violations: Addendum: Executive Knowledge, Fiduciary Breach, and the Interwoven Evidentiary Chain [Not found in content]
    • XVI. Protected Activity Chronology and Reporting Digest
    • XVII. Certification and Digital Endorsement
    • XVIII. Service Attestation

    I. Introduction and Docketing Request

    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]

    II. Material Assertions and Representations at Issue

    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:

    • Position statements and supplemental filings submitted to the EEOC or other agencies;
    • Emails and written correspondence by supervisors, HR, or management;
    • Teams, Slack, or other internal chat communications relevant to leave, accommodation, or discipline;
    • Workday, payroll, or HR system input and audit logs;
    • Internal notes, digital logs, and records of meetings or corrective actions;
    • Any other documented or system-captured assertion or representation made by Cox or its agents regarding Claimant's employment, leave, discipline, or accommodation.

    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]

    III. Statutory and Procedural Foundation

    This motion is submitted pursuant to:

    • 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA enforcement via Title VII procedures)
    • 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and (f)(1) (EEOC investigative authority and enforcement)
    • 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) and § 1601.18 (submission and use of party statements as evidence)
    • Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) (statements of an opposing party as non-hearsay)
    • EEOC-DOL-DOJ MOU (2018, revised 2022) for collaborative investigation and systemic referral

    The Commission is empowered to preserve and memorialize such statements as binding admissions, subject to cross-agency evidentiary review.

    [Back to Table of Contents]

    IV. Relief Sought

    The Claimant respectfully requests that the EEOC and cross-agency recipients:

    • Enter this motion and the cited material statement into the permanent record for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001;
    • Formally memorialize the quoted material statement as a material representation in the record, subject to Rule 801(d)(2) admissions;
    • Order Cox Communications to admit, clarify, or deny this material statement within 10 business days, or else treat it as an evidentiary admission for all investigative and judicial purposes;
    • Refer any systemic findings arising from this statement to DOJ Civil Rights Division and DOL WHD;
    • Distribute a certified copy of this motion and the quoted material statement to all relevant oversight agencies for synchronized review.

    [Back to Table of Contents]

    V. Material Statements Submitted by Respondent's Counsel are Contradicted by Direct Documentary Evidence

    #InfractionIndividuals/PrincipalsRecords & SystemsForensic Data/Discovery ActionsTestimony/Demand
    1Unsigned, 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 emailsExtract digital signature metadata; Pull all email chains approving submission; Identify all contributors and reviewers in document properties; Preserve all drafts and transmission recordsDemand sworn affidavit from Justin Miles and Kia Painter attesting to authorship, review, and certification of all factual assertions.
    2Absence of Sworn DeclarationsKia Painter, Lakita Gaines, Inelyz Martinez, Donte HolmesHR case files; Internal investigation notes; List of all managers/decision-makers referencedIdentify 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 subpoenaDemand sworn declarations from each named principal for every material assertion made.
    3Verbal Conversation Claims UnsubstantiatedHR Manager (assigned), Kia Painter, Donte HolmesPhone logs, call records (VOIP, Teams/Zoom), Email follow-ups, HRIS notesSubpoena 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 documentationEach HR principal must provide a sworn statement with date/time, attendees, and substance of every referenced conversation.
    4Contradictory Payroll StatementsPayroll Administrator, MetLife Coordinator, Ursula RogersPayroll system logs (Workday, ADP), Paystubs, IRS filings, MetLife STD claim recordsPull 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 paySworn payroll administrator and MetLife coordinator testimony on all entries, discrepancies, and reporting.
    5Fabricated Access/Return NarrativeJennifer Melton, Inelyz MartinezPhysician RTW letters, ADA accommodation forms, HRIS access logsExtract and compare all RTW documentation; Audit HRIS access block/restore records; Subpoena physician communicationsTestimony from HR and medical contacts on RTW instructions, access restoration, and timeline.
    6Improper Footnotes to Disclaim ResponsibilityJustin Miles (author), Cox Legal TeamDrafts of position statement, Email chains about footnotes, Internal legal review notesDemand production of all drafts and revision history; Identify all contributors to disclaimers; Subpoena legal team for rationale behind disclaimersSworn affidavit from each legal drafter as to accuracy and intent of disclaimers.
    7Misrepresentation of Performance RecordsDonte Holmes, Scorecard Administrator, Performance CoachScorecard logs, Performance review emails, Accommodation request recordsPull all performance review drafts and final versions; Audit for edits after accommodation requests; Compare timeline to ADA/FMLA requestsSworn testimony from all reviewers on content, timing, and knowledge of accommodations.
    8Disregard of Disability Status in Harassment ClaimsSupervisors, HR Compliance, Jennifer MeltonMedical records, Email notifications, HR complaint logsExtract all emails referencing disability or ADA; Audit HR complaint system for entries and responses; Subpoena supervisors for knowledge and responseTestimony from all involved on knowledge of disability and steps taken.
    9Absence of Internal Investigation or DocumentationLakita Gaines, Internal HR Compliance Officer, Ursula RogersInternal investigation files, Interview notes, HRIS audit logsDemand all investigation notes and logs; Subpoena all interview participants; Forensically review HRIS for undeclared editsSworn affidavits from all compliance officers regarding investigation scope and findings.
    10Improper Grouping of EEOC MattersAlexander Perez (EEOC), Cox Legal TeamEEOC charge files, Internal legal memos, Correspondence with EEOCPull all correspondence regarding charge grouping; Audit EEOC and Cox records for consolidation discussions; Identify all legal team members involvedSworn testimony from Perez and Cox legal on rationale, process, and due process compliance.

    All individuals above are required to:

    • Preserve and produce all emails, internal chat logs (Teams, Slack), Workday/HRIS records, and any documentation relating to leave, accommodation, payroll, discipline, compliance, or any matter relevant to this proceeding;
    • Provide sworn affidavits or be available for deposition/interview regarding their knowledge, decisions, and participation in the creation, approval, or dissemination of the Cox April 2025 Position Statement and any related communications, system entries, or actions impacting the Complainant or this case;
    • Correct the record for any false, misleading, or unsupported statements for which they were responsible or had knowledge, whether in the position statement or any other form or forum;
    • Comply with all legal, regulatory, and ethical obligations to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and preservation of the record for EEOC, DOL, DOJ, and judicial review.

    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.

    LEGAL NOTICE OF INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY

    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:

    • Entered data, made changes, or taken action in Cox's HR, payroll, benefits, or compliance systems;
    • Sent, received, or been copied on emails, internal communications, or system notes relevant to leave, accommodation, payroll, discipline, or compliance;
    • Made, repeated, or allowed false statements, unsupported assertions, or omissions in the April 2025 Position Statement, related filings, or other documented communications;
    • Failed to intervene, report, or correct known or suspected violations of EEOC statutes, ADA, FMLA, or other applicable laws, thereby enabling such violations to persist or propagate.

    Each individual named below is subject to:

    • Formal demand for sworn affidavit, deposition, or interview regarding their knowledge, actions, and participation in any and all matters related to this case, including but not limited to the position statement, system entries, and all communications or decisions impacting the Complainant;
    • Requests for clarification and correction of any disputed or unsupported facts or statements for which they were responsible or had knowledge;
    • Personal and professional exposure for perjury, bad faith, breach of fiduciary duty, or failure to correct or report known violations, as determined by the EEOC, DOL, DOJ, or any court or oversight agency;
    • An ongoing duty to preserve all records, communications, and system data relevant to this matter, regardless of format or medium, including any future or supplemental actions taken in relation to the Complainant or this case.

    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.

    MEMORIALIZED PRINCIPALS AND RESPONDENTS COX COMMUNICATIONS

    #NameTitleRole/Context
    1Lakita GainesHR 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.
    2Jennifer MeltonSenior 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.
    3Keith 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.
    4Kia PainterChief 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.
    5Ursula RogersHR 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.
    6Azariah WorkmanSupervisor or Frontline ManagerPlayed 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.
    7Donte HolmesSupervisor (CCI-Atlanta)Immediate supervisor during key leave and accommodation events. Acknowledged out-of-office notices, and confirmed certain occurrences were logged as excused.
    8Sarah DellaVecchioManager or HR Liaison (CCI-Virginia)Included in attendance tracking and Workday communications. Mentioned in context of reports and accommodation coordination.
    9Chauntriss HerringUnspecified, likely involved in Benefits or HR ComplianceReferenced in previous correspondence threads related to benefits eligibility and Workday permissions.
    10Rachel SmithPossibly Benefits or Legal/HR LiaisonOccasionally CCd in formal letters involving leave policy and disability-related case progression.

    All individuals above are required to:

    • Preserve and produce all emails, internal chat logs (Teams, Slack), Workday/HRIS records, and any documentation relating to leave, accommodation, payroll, discipline, compliance, or any matter relevant to this proceeding;
    • Provide sworn affidavits or be available for deposition/interview regarding their knowledge, decisions, and participation in the creation, approval, or dissemination of the Cox April 2025 Position Statement and any related communications, system entries, or actions impacting the Complainant or this case;
    • Correct the record for any false, misleading, or unsupported statements for which they were responsible or had knowledge, whether in the position statement or any other form or forum;
    • Comply with all legal, regulatory, and ethical obligations to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and preservation of the record for EEOC, DOL, DOJ, and judicial review.

    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]

    VI. Narrative of Retaliation and Constructive Obstruction: The Azariah Workman Event June 28, 2024

    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 OccurredWhat 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

    • Retaliation under ADA Title I: 42 U.S.C. 12203(a) prohibits retaliation against an individual for requesting reasonable accommodations or reporting discrimination.
    • Constructive Obstruction of Medical Leave (FMLA): 29 U.S.C. 2615(a)(1)-(2) prohibits employers from interfering with or retaliating against the use of FMLA-protected leave. Chest pain and physician care are triggers under serious health condition definitions.
    • Violation of EEOC Confidentiality Standards: 29 C.F.R. 1630.14(c)(1)(i) prohibits the disclosure of confidential medical information to unauthorized personnel.
    • Failure to Engage in Good-Faith Interactive Process: EEOC Guidance mandates employers to actively assist in accommodation after disclosure. Instead, the employer took punitive action.
    • Constructive Discharge and Payroll Withholding: Cutting pay following a protected medical disclosure, without notice or process, constitutes constructive interference under 29 C.F.R. 1602.14 and can rise to constructive discharge if continued.
    • Bad Faith Retaliatory Documentation: The creation of an unprompted negative evaluation, temporally adjacent to a medical disclosure, demonstrates retaliatory animus and violates 42 U.S.C. 2000e-3(a).

    IV. Escalating Retaliation After Protected Health Disclosure: A Pattern Confirmed by Internal Emails and External Findings

    Cox Position Statement ClaimContradicted 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.

    🧭 Compliance Heatmap: Retaliation & ADA Failure at a Glance

    Phase / EventLegal StandardCox ActionViolation TriggeredAgency/Statute Breached
    Accommodation Request Submitted42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)Ignored for multiple daysFailure to accommodateEEOC, ADA Title I
    STD Filed with MetLifeADA + ERISA fiduciary duty (29 CFR § 2560.503-1)Blocked / discouraged participationInterference + failure to engageDOL, ERISA, ADA
    Managerial Emails EmergeEEOC Enforcement Guidance No. 915.002Show active avoidance and delay tacticsPattern of pretext + retaliationEEOC, ADA
    Pay Cut While Awaiting Response29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)Removed from payroll, no hearingConstructive discharge, lack of processEEOC, Due Process Clause
    Outreach to DOJ/EEOC InitiatedProtected Activity (42 U.S.C. § 12203)Terminated within 24 hoursDirect retaliation after protected actEEOC, DOJ Civil Rights Division
    EEOC Accepts Unverified Statement29 CFR § 1601.15 & EEOC Intake ManualNo affidavit, no witness testimonyProcedural abdication of factfindingEEOC Systemic Unit
    VEC Reversal Confirms Medical SeparationUIPL 04-01; Va. Code § 60.2-612Conflicts with Cox’s resignation claimProves constructive discharge narrativeVEC, DOL, EEOC

    IV. Pretextual Conduct and Contradictions in the Record

    Cox Position Statement ClaimContradicted 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]

    Ongoing Timeline, Record Falsification, and Bad Faith

    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.

    • June 19, 2024: Complainant formally requests medical leave from his supervisor, Donte Holmes. The supervisor subsequently provides instructions regarding FMLA and medical leave via the Employee Service Center (ESC).

      Proof: Contemporaneous email/text correspondence and Workday logs.

    • June 20, 2024: The supervisor, with direct assistance from HR Director Azariah Workman (as evidenced by Workday system logs), generates and issues a negative evaluation and written warning. This action occurs immediately subsequent to the protected leave request.

      Proof: Workday system logs.

    • June 25, 2024: Complainant formally requests the correction and removal of the improper warning from HR and management.

      Proof: Email/ticket submitted to HR.

    • July�August 2024: Complainant continues to pursue resolution, submitting additional requests and tickets to HR. Cox/HR fails to act promptly or to provide written confirmation of the warning's removal.

      Proof: HR ticket logs and email chains.

    • September 2024: Despite numerous requests and HR�s eventual acknowledgment that the warning should have been rescinded, the written warning remains in the Complainant's record and is referenced by Cox in ongoing proceedings and position statements.

      Proof: Email chains, HR ticket logs, and screenshots.

    • June 27, 2024: Azariah Workman provides the "Physician Accommodation Request" form, yet subsequently alleges that the process was not adhered to or that documentation was deficient.

      Proof: Workman�s own system logs.

    • July 1�18, 2024: Complainant repeatedly seeks resolution for outstanding payroll, leave, and accommodation issues. Workman�s responses during this period are characterized by delay, vagueness, and a lack of substantive engagement.

      Proof: Documented correspondence.

    • July 9, 2024: Workman acknowledges receipt of the accommodation request but merely offers to �discuss the details further when you return from your leave in September�. This constitutes a deliberate stalling tactic, directly contravening the ADA�s requirement for a prompt interactive process.

      Proof: Email correspondence.

    • July 11, 2024: Workman asserts that Complainant unilaterally closed his own leave case and is "not on an an approved leave". This assertion disregards the underlying actions and Workman's direct role in obstructing the accommodation process.

      Proof: Comparison of Workman�s statements versus Complainant�s documented record.

    • July 18, 2024: Complainant meticulously documents a comprehensive list of unresolved issues, including payroll discrepancies, system access impediments, and failures in ADA/FMLA compliance. Workman�s continued lack of substantive response provides further evidence of ongoing bad faith.

      Proof: Complainant�s detailed documentation.

    • Late July�September 2024: Despite repeated outreach efforts, Workman and HR fail to correct records, restore pay, or rectify ADA/FMLA violations. The written warning, despite having been rescinded, remains in the record, and pay cessation is directly traceable to Workman�s actions.

      Proof: Correspondence and payroll records.

    Legal & Evidentiary Implications:
    • Direct Action: The temporal proximity�less than 24 hours�between the Complainant's protected activity (request for leave) and the adverse employment action (issuance of a written warning) constitutes classic "smoking gun" evidence of action under 42 U.S.C. � 12203(a) and EEOC Enforcement Guidance.
    • Perjury and False Statements: Cox's position statement falsely claims that the warning predated the leave request. Documentary evidence incontrovertibly proves the inverse, thereby constituting perjury under 18 U.S.C. � 1001 and providing grounds for an adverse inference.
    • Ongoing Bad Faith and Record Falsification: Cox's persistent failure to remove the rescinded warning, notwithstanding HR's prior confirmation of its removal, signifies ongoing bad faith and potentially spoliation of evidence.
    • Continued Misrepresentation: Cox's sustained reference to the rescinded warning in agency filings, subsequent to being formally notified of its removal, demonstrates knowing misrepresentation and may constitute obstruction of justice.
    Paradigm Shift � How This Changes the Legal Landscape:
    • All subsequent statements, policies, and denials issued by Cox Communications must be critically re-evaluated in light of this initial, documented act of action and bad faith. Every assertion of "policy compliance" or "good faith" is inherently tainted by Ms. Workman�s central role in the foundational violation.
    • Perjury and False Statements: Ms. Workman's and Cox's continued misrepresentations to the EEOC are not mere oversights; they are deliberate, knowing falsehoods subject to legal sanction and adverse inference.
    • Systemic Failure: The cumulative correspondence and evidentiary record reveal not isolated errors, but rather a systemic pattern of action, undue delay, and concerted efforts to conceal pertinent information.
    • Notice to EEOC and All Agencies: The EEOC's failure to adequately address these documented issues, despite having been provided with compelling evidence months prior, itself represents a procedural deficiency and fully justifies the Complainant's demand for sworn affidavits, cross-examination, and comprehensive cross-agency enforcement.

      XI. Addendum: Persistent Retaliation, Record Tampering, and Bad Faith (June�September 2024)

      I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

      ComplainantThomas D. Coates
      Respondent(s)Cox Communications, Inc., Keith Wilson, Jennifer Melton
      JurisdictionEEOC 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)

      II. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

      DateEvent/ActionEvidence Ref.
      07/19/2024Complainant 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
      01/02/2025Clear 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 6Ahttps://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024
      01/03/2025Voluntary resignation" Ex6A letter, email Exhibit 6Ahttps://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024
      01/03/2025I 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

      III. STATUTES AND POLICIES VIOLATED

      Statute/RegulationDescriptionPolicy 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. § 12203Retaliation for requesting ADA accommodationEEOC 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. § 4311If US military, it is a violation of veteran rights.U.S. Department of Labor Vets Guide

      IV. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES & FALSE ASSERTIONS

      Assertion/StatementSourceContradictory EvidenceImplication
      "Your failure to return to work constitutes a voluntary resignation under Cox’s Unpaid Leave of Absence policy."Keith Wilson letter Ex 6ADid 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 6AHe wanted to submit documentation but was not being provided an opportunity.His rights were being circumvented by a passive aggressive process.

      V. POLICY ANALYSIS

      Policy RequirementWhat Should Have HappenedActual ActionDeviation
      ADA compliance from Cox CommunicationCox 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 othersThere was a denial of reasonable action, while also being retaliated against.A violation.

      VI. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES & RELATED INDIVIDUALS

      NameTitle/RoleInvolvement
      Keith WilsonVP, Employee Experience & ComplianceSent separation letter Ex 6A
      Jennifer MeltonCCI-Atlanta Ex 6AEmail chain Ex 6A
      Kia PainterSenior VP of OperationsNot responding and therefore complicit

      VII. PRIOR FILINGS & EVIDENCE OF PATTERN

      DateFiling/AgencyCase/ReferenceStatus/Outcome
      OngoingThis complaintEEOC 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 involvingSony Music v. Cox and https://casetext.com/case/nerc-v-andersonPattern of violations

      VIII. EXHIBITS & EVIDENCE

      • Ex. 6A Wilson, Keith (CCI-Atlanta) <Keith.Wilson@cox.com> Wilson letter, email
      • https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 ADA FORM
      • Emails with executives for Kia Painter's emails
      • Ex 6B : 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. 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:

      IX. RELIEF AND REMEDIES SOUGHT

      1. Immediate reinstatement with accommodations under the ADA.
      2. The company do due diligence for the violations that have been committed under law.
      3. That the company look to reconsile.
      4. Relief.

      X. SERVICE AND NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES

      • EEOC Norfolk Area Office
      • Cox Communications, Inc. HR and Legal
      • Department Of Labor
      • Disability Rights Groups
      • US Merit system protection act (if US military employed with Cox)
      Notice: This addendum is intended to satisfy the recordkeeping, disclosure, and transmission requirements of all referenced agencies and courts. All parties are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this record in accordance with applicable law.
      Respectfully Submitted,
      /s/ Thomas D. Coates
      tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539
      Back to Table of Contents


      XII. Addendum: Anticipated Defenses, Rationalizations, and Procedural Safeguards

      Back to Table of Contents

      XIII. CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions in April 2025 Position Statement

      CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions in April 2025 Position Statement

      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.

      Table of Unsupported Assertions
      #Assertion (summary)PageChallenge & Demand
      1Claims are speculative and irrelevant overall1Demand: Produce supporting documentation or affidavit. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied.
      2Cox provided �extensive� accommodations to Coates2Demand: Identify and produce all records or communications evidencing �extensive� accommodations. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied.
      3Only denied accommodations outside company control2Demand: Produce documentation showing which accommodations were denied and why they were outside company control. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied.
      4Refusal to return equaled voluntary resignation2Demand: Produce resignation letter or contemporaneous record of voluntary resignation. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied.
      48Anti-retaliation policy compliance claimed without audits3Demand: 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

      Back to Table of Contents

      XIV. Declaration of Material Contradictions: MetLife Disability File versus Administrative Record

      Back to Table of Contents

      XV. Addendum: Executive Knowledge, Fiduciary Breach, and the Interwoven Evidentiary Chain

      I. Scope of Material Assertions and Communications

      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:

      • Emails, Teams/Slack/internal chats, and written correspondence by supervisors, HR, or management;
      • Workday, payroll, or HR system input, audit logs, and digital notes;
      • Internal meeting notes, Teams chat logs, and any communication copied to or involving executives or compliance officers (including Ms. Painter);
      • Any documented assertion, directive, or omission by Cox or its agents regarding Complainant�s employment, leave, discipline, or accommodation.
      The evidentiary chain is intentionally intertwined: any attempt to �fix� or disclaim a single document (e.g., the position statement) will not defeat the integrity of the record, as other communications and system records independently corroborate the violations and inconsistencies at issue.

      II. Executive and Compliance Officer Responsibility

      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.

      III. Systemic and Paradigm-Shifting Implications

      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.

      IV. Independent Standing of Addenda

      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.

      Legal and Regulatory Standards for Accuracy and Factual Support

      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.