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.

Statutory Violations Identified by Oversight Authorities

  1. Reliance on Unsigned or Unauthenticated Evidence
    The EEOC accepted and relied upon an unsigned position statement from Cox Communications, despite immediate objection and statutory requirements for authentication.
    Violation: 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5)
    Oversight: “Federal agencies must not rely on unsigned, uncertified, or unauthenticated evidence in adjudication or investigation.” (GAO-15-290)
    In my case: The unsigned statement was never remedied or addressed, yet was used in the agency’s handling.
  2. Failure to Provide Opportunity to Respond to Adverse Evidence
    Motions and objections regarding the unsigned statement and other adverse evidence were ignored, denying a fair opportunity to respond.
    Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)
    Oversight: “Agencies must afford all parties a meaningful opportunity to respond to adverse evidence before making a determination.” (GAO-17-317)
    In my case: My objections and motions were never addressed before the case was closed.
  3. Premature or Arbitrary Closure of Investigations
    The EEOC closed and reopened my inquiry multiple times without resolving pending motions or objections, lacking documented resolution.
    Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
    Oversight: “Premature closure of cases without full investigation or resolution of pending motions constitutes arbitrary and capricious action.” (GAO-17-317)
    In my case: The inquiry was closed and reopened without addressing my procedural filings.
  4. Failure to Maintain Accurate and Complete Records
    The EEOC’s record contains an unsigned position statement and lacks documentation of evidence evaluation or legal standards applied.
    Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5); 44 U.S.C. § 3101
    Oversight: “Agencies are required to maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records in all proceedings.” (OIG-DOJ-21-028)
    In my case: The record is incomplete and lacks a documented rationale.
  5. Ignoring or Failing to Address Formal Complaints and Escalations
    Formal objections to procedural handling and requests for correction were not addressed or responded to in writing.
    Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 553(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)
    Oversight: “Agencies must respond to formal complaints and escalations in writing and address all substantive issues raised.” (OSC-2021-0002)
    In my case: My formal objections and escalations were not answered.
  6. Failure to Apply or Cite the Correct Legal Standard
    No written outline was provided of how evidence was evaluated or the legal standard applied, despite timely requests.
    Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)
    Oversight: “Agency decisions must clearly state the legal standard applied and the rationale for findings.” (GAO-15-290)
    In my case: No legal standard or rationale was documented.
  7. Retaliation or Chilling Effect on Protected Activity
    After asserting ADA rights and filing complaints, adverse actions were not investigated as retaliation.
    Violation: 42 U.S.C. § 12203; 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)
    Oversight: “Any adverse action or procedural delay that discourages or penalizes protected activity is strictly prohibited.” (OSC-2021-0002)
    In my case: My protected activity was followed by adverse actions not investigated as retaliation.
  8. Failure to Coordinate with Other Agencies or Acknowledge Parallel Proceedings
    Despite notification of Virginia Employment Commission and other agency involvement, the EEOC did not coordinate findings, risking inconsistent outcomes.
    Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.75
    Oversight: “Agencies must coordinate with other federal/state agencies handling related matters and acknowledge parallel proceedings.” (GAO-17-317)
    In my case: No coordination or acknowledgment of VEC or other agency involvement.
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