Dear Ms. Clancy,

Whether your engagement with my case is prompted by a stirring of the human heart—by a sense of justice or recognition of potential wrongdoing—or by a commitment to ensuring that agency procedures advance efficiently and without impediments, I acknowledge and respect both motivations. My intent in this letter is to address and embrace both perspectives. If you are moved by the former, you will recognize the necessity of reckoning with what follows. If your role requires the latter, this letter ensures that the statutory and factual basis for all actions is clear, complete, and answerable to both law and principle. In either case, what follows is designed to preserve the integrity of the process for all reviewing bodies.

Key Contradictions and Statutory Violations

Cox Assertion Contradictory Evidence Statute Violated
“Your failure to return to work constitutes a voluntary resignation under Cox’s Unpaid Leave of Absence policy.”
(Keith Wilson, Jan 3, 2025)
VEC found separation was for medical reasons, not voluntary resignation.
Physician’s letter (Oct 2, 2024) authorized return with accommodations.
MetLife accepted medical documentation and approved return-to-work.
ADA Title I, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)
“You did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation.” Medical documentation was provided and acknowledged by HR.
Plaintiff followed up repeatedly to confirm receipt and compliance.
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)
Cox claims compliance with ADA interactive process. No documented interactive process; repeated outreach by Plaintiff ignored.
HR mischaracterized physician’s note and failed to discuss accommodations.
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)
No retaliation occurred. Adverse actions (denial of access, delayed pay, termination) followed protected ADA activity.
Temporal proximity and pattern of retaliation established.
42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)
Plaintiff failed to follow procedures. VEC rejected Cox’s procedural arguments.
Cox imposed unnecessary hurdles and restarted accommodation process.
29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(b)
No systemic issues. Internal complaints and ethics reports ignored.
Public claims of accessibility and inclusion contradicted by actions.
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(B)
Critical Issues Requiring Formal Agency Response
  1. The EEOC must explicitly address that it knowingly relied on an unsigned, unauthenticated position statement as the basis for agency action, in direct violation of federal law.
  2. Any final decision must state whether the agency affirms that the investigator’s actions—including acceptance of unsigned evidence and failure to resolve objections—are consistent with EEOC policy and precedent, and if so, whether this is the standard for future cases.
  3. The statutory violations outlined above are not procedural technicalities, but matters that require mandatory review and reporting by oversight bodies, including the Office of Special Counsel, the Office of Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office.
  4. The involvement of other agencies, including the Virginia Employment Commission, and their agreement to coordinate or review this matter, requires the EEOC to document and justify any departures from established interagency standards and statutory mandates.

These are not discretionary matters; they are statutory requirements. This letter is intended to ensure the process is clear, complete, and answerable to both law and principle—regardless of the perspective from which it is reviewed.

Sincerely,
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com