Declaration and Formal Request – Thomas D. Coates v. Cox Communications

Executive Summary

This submission presents a comprehensive and meticulously documented record of ongoing and egregious violations of federal employment law by Cox Communications, Inc. against Thomas D. Coates. The case arises from a series of retaliatory actions, procedural failures, and misrepresentations that began immediately after Mr. Coates exercised his statutory rights to request reasonable accommodations for a serious medical condition. Despite repeated efforts to resolve these issues internally and through agency processes, Cox Communications has engaged in a pattern of delay, denial, and bad faith, culminating in the wrongful termination of Mr. Coates and the obstruction of his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and related statutes.

The evidence submitted here includes a decisive ruling from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) in Mr. Coates’s favor, extensive contemporaneous email and payroll records, and multiple internal and agency communications. These materials collectively establish that Cox’s core assertions are demonstrably false and that the harm suffered by Mr. Coates is both substantial and ongoing. The record further shows that the EEOC’s investigation to date has relied on unsigned and unsubstantiated employer statements, failed to coordinate with parallel agency proceedings, and has not meaningfully addressed the procedural and substantive violations at issue.

This document therefore requests, in the strongest possible terms, an expanded and coordinated investigation, immediate corrective relief, and the imposition of sanctions as authorized by law. The stakes in this matter extend beyond the individual case, implicating the integrity of federal enforcement and the rights of all employees who seek protection from discrimination and retaliation.

Declaration and Formal Request for Expanded Investigation, Relief, and Sanctions
Executive Summary
Headlined Facts Demonstrating Urgency and Jurisdiction
Procedural History
Statement of Facts
Legal Standards and Violations
- ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act)
- FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act)
- Retaliation and Pretext
- HIPAA and Confidentiality
- FLSA and Payroll Irregularities
- Other Statutory Violations
Evidence and Exhibits
- Exhibit Index Table
- Personnel File and Performance Reviews
- Medical Documentation
- Email and Correspondence Log
- Payroll and Benefits Records
- Witness Statements
- Internal Complaints and Ethics Reports
- Agency Correspondence
- Policy Manuals and Handbooks
- Timeline of Events
- Advocacy and Social Impact Materials
Relief and Sanctions Requested
Cross-Agency Notification and Public Interest Statement
Certification and Signature
Attachments
Appendices
- Glossary of Terms
- Legal Citations and Authorities
- Additional Supporting Materials
- Media References (if any)

. .

Headlined Facts Demonstrating Urgency and Jurisdiction

VEC Appeal Win Proves Cox’s Assertions Are False:
The Virginia Employment Commission, after reviewing the full evidentiary record, reversed the denial of Mr. Coates’s benefits on appeal—finding that his separation was due to medical necessity, not voluntary resignation. This independent state-level finding directly contradicts Cox’s core assertions and confirms the legitimacy of Mr. Coates’s claims. (See Exhibit B: VEC Decision)
Immediate Retaliation After Protected Activity:
Within hours of submitting a written request for reasonable accommodations for a serious heart condition, Cox HR sent Mr. Coates home on administrative leave and, the same day, cut his pay for an entire month. This sequence is irrefutably documented in contemporaneous emails and payroll records, establishing a clear causal link between protected activity and adverse action. (See Exhibits D, E)
False and Unsigned Position Statement:
Cox’s position statement to the EEOC is unsigned, unsubstantiated, and unsupported by any affidavits or interviews. This submission is consistent with Cox’s pattern of refusing to provide real evidence or subject its supervisors to scrutiny—yet the EEOC has, to date, accepted this as sufficient to close or delay the case. (See Exhibit G: Cox Position Statement)
Pattern of Retaliation and Pretext:
Multiple emails demonstrate that Cox supervisors and HR failed to acknowledge Mr. Coates’s accommodation request for days, then terminated him within hours of his notice to contact the U.S. Department of Justice. This pattern of delay, denial, and sudden adverse action is indicative of pretext and unlawful retaliation under federal law. (See Exhibits F, H)

III. Legal and Procedural Irregularities by the Respondent

No affidavits or witness statements were submitted by Cox in support of its assertions regarding accommodations, payroll, or termination.
No documentation was provided to explain the cut-off of pay or the classification of leave between June 28 and July 9, 2024, despite the Complainant’s immediate health disclosure and documented symptoms.
No reference or acknowledgment of Ms. Workman’s role exists in the Position Statement, despite her being the direct actor in both the discipline and the payroll termination.
The Position Statement instead contains unsupported denials such as:
“Cox has no record of unresolved ADA accommodation requests or payroll disputes during this period.”
– Cox Position Statement, Page 6

This claim is demonstrably false, as shown by HRIS case records and timestamped email requests submitted contemporaneously by the Complainant.

IV. Legal Consequences and Agency Exposure

Adverse inference under Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) and EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 6: When material records are excluded or actors are shielded from testimony, courts and agencies may infer that the missing evidence would have been unfavorable to the respondent.^[11][14]
Violations of ADA Title I, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A): Denial of accommodation and interference with protected leave.^[8][12]
Procedural denial of rights under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b): Failure to notify the Complainant of the reason for adverse action (loss of pay).^[9]
Potential falsification under 18 U.S.C. § 1001: Federal submissions that omit or misrepresent key events and responsible parties may constitute false statements or concealment, subject to criminal penalties.^[10]

V. Relief Requested

Immediate supervisory review of the case under EEOC Order 915.002 and MD-110 § 2-302;
Reopening of the investigation, strictly to review the HRIS logs, payroll cut-off records, and all communications between Ms. Workman and payroll between June 28 and July 9, 2024;
Referral to DOL and DOJ for review of potential wage violations and obstruction under ERISA § 503 and ADA Title I.

EthicsPoint Whistleblower Sequence: Documented, Escalated, Ignored

June–August 2024: Over a 6-week period, more than six detailed EthicsPoint cases were submitted, each disclosing ADA accommodation failures, payroll violations, retaliation, and HR misconduct.
Escalation to Executive Leadership: Multiple entries were specifically directed to, and system-confirmed as received by, Cox’s Chief Compliance Officer (Kia Painter), Leave/Absence Case Manager (Inelyz Martinez), and Legal Counsel (Ursula Rogers).
No Response, No Investigation: Not a single acknowledgment, response, or remedial action was ever provided—despite repeated follow-ups and the urgent, health-related nature of the disclosures.
Institutional Silence: This silence persisted even as the Complainant’s payroll was cut off, leave status was unclassified, and retaliation escalated.

Formal Legal Framing:
From approximately June to August 2024, the Complainant submitted a series of detailed, time-stamped disclosures through Cox’s internal EthicsPoint platform—reporting ADA violations, retaliation, constructive discharge conditions, and wage disruptions. Despite the legal obligation to respond to protected disclosures—especially where ADA and FMLA rights were implicated—Cox’s internal compliance team, executive leadership, and HR stakeholders failed to issue a single acknowledgment, response, or investigative action in return.

Here is a **tight, detailed list of all major and minor sections** you should include in your master HTML document, in the recommended order for a comprehensive EEOC/federal employment law submission. This list includes all subsections and sub-items, ensuring nothing is missed[5][17][18]: --- 1. **Header & Metadata** 2. **Case Caption (Parties, Case Numbers, Dates)** 3. **Filing Party/Contact Info** 4. **Declaration and Formal Request for Expanded Investigation, Relief, and Sanctions** 5. **Table of Contents** 6. **Executive Summary** 7. **Headlined Facts Demonstrating Urgency and Jurisdiction** 8. **Procedural History** 9. **Statement of Facts** 10. **Legal Standards and Violations** - ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) - FMLA (Family and Medical Leave Act) - Retaliation and Pretext - HIPAA and Confidentiality - FLSA and Payroll Irregularities - Other Statutory Violations 11. **Evidence and Exhibits** - Exhibit Index Table - Personnel File and Performance Reviews - Medical Documentation - Email and Correspondence Log - Payroll and Benefits Records - Witness Statements - Internal Complaints and Ethics Reports - Agency Correspondence - Policy Manuals and Handbooks - Timeline of Events - Advocacy and Social Impact Materials 12. **Relief and Sanctions Requested** 13. **Cross-Agency Notification and Public Interest Statement** 14. **Certification and Signature** 15. **Attachments** 16. **Appendices** - Glossary of Terms - Legal Citations and Authorities - Additional Supporting Materials - Media References (if any) --- **How to use:** - Use this as your master checklist. - For each section or subsection, send your draft or content and I’ll return it as fully formatted HTML. - This ensures every required detail is included and nothing is missed. If you want, I can also provide a printable checklist version or an HTML version with “paste here” notes for each section. [1] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/3567549/4fb98a9b-6ae4-4556-acc4-06ec05298a19/com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.kix.editors.clipboard-uuid-6ca1c332-7041-49a0-8457-bc6e0ed8d34f [2] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/3567549/e68c7676-4f39-4f5b-8cd2-b23627aa8fb2/com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.kix.editors.clipboard-uuid-8c866252-9285-4da2-8a03-f0e4c34f420f [3] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/3567549/50d0dfc9-5025-4519-866e-88dc4904115a/com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.kix.editors.clipboard-uuid-8c866252-9285-4da2-8a03-f0e4c34f420f [4] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/3567549/6a1f2fc1-193c-4a06-9ee2-68f22ea1b3f6/com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.kix.editors.clipboard-uuid-8c866252-9285-4da2-8a03-f0e4c34f420f [5] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/3567549/c27e3b7c-f852-416e-b3ab-59f1c281169b/com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.kix.editors.clipboard-uuid-de86b85a-0226-474b-ac95-ba17658a6ec1 [6] https://ppl-ai-file-upload.s3.amazonaws.com/web/direct-files/attachments/3567549/dd87dc42-1fc7-420c-99f2-ef15fa94b5db/com.google.android.apps.docs.editors.kix.editors.clipboard-uuid-748cd196-c9f2-4f61-b1f1-a167e50474d7 [7] https://www.findlaw.com/employment/employment-discrimination/eeoc-s-charge-processing-procedures.html [8] https://www.ilcd.uscourts.gov/sites/ilcd/files/forms/EEOC%20Instructions%20INTERNET.pdf [9] https://adata.org/legal_brief/legal-brief-protection-retaliation [10] https://setyanlaw.com/file-eeoc-claim-against-employer/ [11] https://www.peoplekeep.com/blog/what-is-an-eeo-1-report [12] https://www.uscis.gov/i-9-central/form-i-9-resources/handbook-for-employers-m-274/110-unlawful-discrimination-and-penalties-for-prohibited-practices/115-procedures-for-filing-charges-of-employment-discrimination [13] https://www.eeoc.gov/how-file-charge-employment-discrimination [14] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-guidance [15] https://www.eeoc.gov/federal-sector/overview-federal-sector-eeo-complaint-process [16] https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc-legal-resources [17] preferences.content_completeness [18] work.document_templates . . ...

Statement of Facts

I. Chronology of Protected Activity and Retaliatory Conduct (June–July 2024)

On or around June 19, 2024, Complainant disclosed a medically documented disability and formally requested workplace accommodation under ADA Title I, supported by documentation from both his Primary Care Physician (PCP) and Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW).
On June 20, 2024, Azariah Workman, an HR Director with administrative access to the Workday system, participated in the creation and issuance of a negative performance evaluation—within 24 hours of Complainant’s ADA accommodation request.
On June 28, 2024, Ms. Workman advised Complainant to leave work due to reported chest pain and medical distress—effectively triggering a medically protected leave period. However, payroll access was terminated the same day, and no formal notice, accommodation form, or explanation of leave classification was provided.
Between June 29 and July 9, 2024, Complainant was left without pay, without communication, and without procedural recourse, despite submitting multiple written requests to HR and EthicsPoint.
The Respondent's Position Statement, filed in July 2025, omits all reference to these incidents, and fails to identify Azariah Workman or her role in adverse actions—including the denial of pay and HRIS failure to resolve protected leave cases.

II. HRIS System Case Log – Unresolved ADA and FMLA Claims

Date Created	Case ID	Type	Status	Duration Open (as of July 26, 2024)	Statutes Implicated
June 26, 2024	HRC1148753	General Inquiry (Payroll/Leave)	Ready	30 days	ADA, FMLA
June 27, 2024	HRC1149024	Compensation	Ready	29 days	FLSA
July 1, 2024	HRC1149551	General Inquiry (Leave/Payroll)	Ready	25 days	ADA, FMLA
July 3, 2024	HRC1152131	Leave of Absence	Work in Progress	23 days	ADA, FMLA
July 15, 2024	HRC1148762	General Inquiry (Payroll/Leave)	Ready	11 days	ADA, FMLA

Not one of these cases was acknowledged or disclosed in the Respondent’s July 2025 position statement, despite the fact that each was directly relevant to the claims under investigation.

Statutory and Regulatory Violations

ADA Title I (42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(3)(B)): Duty to initiate interactive engagement
29 C.F.R. § 1602.14: Duty to maintain and disclose complaint records
Sarbanes-Oxley (if applicable): Duty to act on internal risk disclosures
EEOC Enforcement Guidance (2016): Prohibition on chilling protected activity

Preserved Actual Knowledge: System logs and emails confirm executive stakeholders received these entries, establishing actual knowledge and making subsequent omission evidence of institutional concealment and possible document suppression.

Legal Implications and Case Strength

Creates a rebuttable presumption of retaliation and bad faith
Supports adverse inference for failure to preserve records (EEOC v. JPMorgan Chase, 295 F.R.D. 166)
May trigger federal whistleblower protections under ADA, ERISA, and the Public Health Service Act

(See Exhibit X: EthicsPoint Submission Log and System Notification Emails)

Statement of Facts

I. Chronology of Protected Activity and Retaliatory Conduct (June–July 2024)

On or around June 19, 2024, Complainant disclosed a medically documented disability and formally requested workplace accommodation under ADA Title I, supported by documentation from both his Primary Care Physician (PCP) and Licensed Clinical Social Worker (LCSW).
On June 20, 2024, Azariah Workman, an HR Director with administrative access to the Workday system, participated in the creation and issuance of a negative performance evaluation—within 24 hours of Complainant’s ADA accommodation request.
On June 28, 2024, Ms. Workman advised Complainant to leave work due to reported chest pain and medical distress—effectively triggering a medically protected leave period. However, payroll access was terminated the same day, and no formal notice, accommodation form, or explanation of leave classification was provided.
Between June 29 and July 9, 2024, Complainant was left without pay, without communication, and without procedural recourse, despite submitting multiple written requests to HR and EthicsPoint.
The Respondent's Position Statement, filed in July 2025, omits all reference to these incidents, and fails to identify Azariah Workman or her role in adverse actions—including the denial of pay and HRIS failure to resolve protected leave cases.

II. HRIS System Case Log – Unresolved ADA and FMLA Claims

Date Created	Case ID	Type	Status	Duration Open (as of July 26, 2024)	Statutes Implicated
June 26, 2024	HRC1148753	General Inquiry (Payroll/Leave)	Ready	30 days	ADA, FMLA
June 27, 2024	HRC1149024	Compensation	Ready	29 days	FLSA
July 1, 2024	HRC1149551	General Inquiry (Leave/Payroll)	Ready	25 days	ADA, FMLA
July 3, 2024	HRC1152131	Leave of Absence	Work in Progress	23 days	ADA, FMLA
July 15, 2024	HRC1148762	General Inquiry (Payroll/Leave)	Ready	11 days	ADA, FMLA

Critical Note:

These HRIS cases were never closed or resolved. The dates listed above reflect when each case was opened, but all remained open and unaddressed by Cox at the time of this filing. Not one of these cases was acknowledged or disclosed in the Respondent’s July 2025 position statement, despite the fact that each was directly relevant to the claims under investigation.

Date Created	Case ID	Type	Status	Unresolved Since	Statutes Implicated
June 26, 2024	HRC1148753	General Inquiry (Payroll/Leave)	Open	June 26, 2024	ADA, FMLA
June 27, 2024	HRC1149024	Compensation	Open	June 27, 2024	FLSA
July 1, 2024	HRC1149551	General Inquiry (Leave/Payroll)	Open	July 1, 2024	ADA, FMLA
July 3, 2024	HRC1152131	Leave of Absence	Open	July 3, 2024	ADA, FMLA
July 15, 2024	HRC1148762	General Inquiry (Payroll/Leave)	Open	July 15, 2024	ADA, FMLA

. . . . . . .

III. Legal and Procedural Irregularities by the Respondent

No affidavits or witness statements were submitted by Cox in support of its assertions regarding accommodations, payroll, or termination.
No documentation was provided to explain the cut-off of pay or the classification of leave between June 28 and July 9, 2024, despite the Complainant’s immediate health disclosure and documented symptoms.
No reference or acknowledgment of Ms. Workman’s role exists in the Position Statement, despite her being the direct actor in both the discipline and the payroll termination.
The Position Statement instead contains unsupported denials such as:
“Cox has no record of unresolved ADA accommodation requests or payroll disputes during this period.”
– Cox Position Statement, Page 6

This claim is demonstrably false, as shown by HRIS case records and timestamped email requests submitted contemporaneously by the Complainant.