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.  

      MEMORIALIZED PRINCIPALS AND RESPONDENTS COX COMMUNICATIONS

     

     


    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:

    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 Complainants 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 relev

    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 sons 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 Coatess 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:

    "Im 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 Coatess 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 accommodationan 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 facilitatenot obstructmedical 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

    1. Retaliation under ADA Title I: 42 U.S.C. 12203(a) prohibits retaliation against an individual for requesting reasonable accommodations or reporting discrimination.
    2. 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.
    3. Violation of EEOC Confidentiality Standards: 29 C.F.R. 1630.14(c)(1)(i) prohibits the disclosure of confidential medical information to unauthorized personnel.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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. 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.