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:
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
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.
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.
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 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. |
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. |