New Evidence, Evidence Reconsideration, and Formal Memorialization

Case Overview

This submission represents a comprehensive statement to Cox Communications' Position Statement, dated April 2025. Its purpose is to formally memorialize the record, vigorously contest assertions that are demonstrably unsupported or factually inaccurate, and compel explicit admission, clarification, or denial of all salient statements and actions documented to date. The subsequent submission will incorporate additional factual appendices, targeted legal analyses pertinent to specific incidents, sworn affidavits, and supplementary evidence substantiating ongoing retaliatory conduct, falsification of records, and systemic procedural transgressions.

All involved parties, including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Respondent, and relevant oversight agencies, are hereby formally apprised that this record remains open. All future occurrences, evidentiary submissions, and agency responses will be formally integrated and meticulously preserved for comprehensive cross-agency review and prospective judicial scrutiny.

• Position statements and subsequent filings submitted to the EEOC or other regulatory bodies.
• Electronic mail and other written correspondence originating from supervisory personnel, Human Resources (HR) representatives, or management.
• Communications exchanged via internal chat platforms such as Teams or Slack, pertaining to leave, accommodation requests, or disciplinary actions.
• Input and audit logs from Workday, payroll systems, or other HR information systems.
• Internal memoranda, digital records, and official accounts of meetings or corrective actions.
• Any other documented or system-captured assertion or representation made by Cox Communications or its authorized agents concerning Complainant’s employment, leave status, disciplinary history, or accommodation requests.

It is critical to note that these aforementioned statements are directly refuted by irrefutable documentary evidence, and their propagation constitutes perjury, retaliatory action, and demonstrable bad faith.

Material Contradictions: MetLife File vs. Cox Position Statement Claim

These significant contradictions serve as compelling evidence of record falsification, a demonstrable failure to provide reasonable accommodation, interference with Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights, and potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA). Their memorialization is imperative, as they represent material admissions subject to both cross-agency audit and enforcement actions.

The Azariah Workman Incident - June 28, 2024

This incident illuminates a pivotal juncture characterized by alleged actions and constructive interference.

On June 28, 2024, Complainant Thomas D. Coates sought a private audience with his manager, Azariah Workman, to address urgent medical concerns, specifically exacerbating cardiac symptoms and heightened stress directly attributable to his son's illness. Mr. Coates anticipated that this discussion would be accorded the confidentiality mandated by the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines.

• Notwithstanding the explicit request for a private discussion, Ms. Workman purportedly convened a meeting that included multiple unauthorized individuals, specifically two direct supervisors and an unassigned third manager, thereby compromising the confidentiality of Mr. Coates's medical disclosure.
• During this meeting, Mr. Coates explicitly disclosed experiencing chest pains and acute stress. Ms. Workman verbally authorized two paid medical days off, unequivocally stating, "I'm 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 a mere few hours of this verbal assurance, Ms. Workman allegedly accessed the Workday system and initiated a cessation of Mr. Coates's remuneration. This decision is documented in Workday and PeopleSoft audit logs, notably without the submission of any additional medical information to justify this alteration, and critically, without prior notification to Mr. Coates or affording him any opportunity to respond.
• Within 72 hours of this event, Ms. Workman purportedly initiated a negative performance evaluation. This action directly followed Mr. Coates's disclosure of his medical condition and his request for accommodation. This evaluation appears to be retroactively dated and was ostensibly generated subsequent to Ms. Workman's awareness of Mr. Coates's protected medical status.
• The Complainant subsequently received no further remuneration for a period approaching 30 days, despite persistent efforts to resolve this critical issue through engagement with Human Resources and his supervisors.

• Action under ADA Title I (42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)): This statute explicitly prohibits actions against individuals who request accommodations or report instances of discrimination.
• Constructive Interference with Medical Leave (FMLA) (29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2)): This provision forbids any interference with an employee's rights under FMLA-protected leave.
• Violation of EEOC Confidentiality Standards (29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c)(1)(i)): This regulation prohibits the disclosure of confidential medical information to unauthorized personnel.
• Failure to Engage in Good-Faith Interactive Process: EEOC Guidance explicitly mandates active assistance following a disclosure of a need for accommodation. The employer, in this instance, allegedly engaged in punitive action instead.
• Constructive Discharge and Payroll Withholding: The act of discontinuing remuneration subsequent to a protected medical disclosure, without proper notice or due process, constitutes a form of constructive discharge.
• Bad Faith Document: The initiation of an unprompted negative evaluation, temporally proximate to a medical disclosure, evinces bad faith and intent.

• Cox Claim: Cox Communications asserts that it "worked cooperatively with Mr. Coates to facilitate his return".
  • Contradicted By: The June 28 incident, wherein a medical disclosure was immediately met with a cessation of pay and the initiation of a negative evaluation, directly refutes this claim.
• Cox Claim: Cox Communications states, "Mr. Coates never presented documentation supporting his claims".
  • Contradicted By: The real-time, verbal disclosure of a medical crisis, followed by immediate payroll action before documentation could reasonably be submitted, contradicts this assertion.
• Cox Claim: Cox Communications contends that "Action claims are unsupported".
  • Contradicted By: The temporal proximity of the protected disclosure, the payroll action, and the adverse evaluation are classic indicators of "but-for" causation under EEOC Enforcement Guidance.
• Cox Claim: Cox Communications posits that the performance evaluation commenced as part of a routine process.
  • Contradicted By: The performance evaluation demonstrably began *after* the medical disclosure, not as part of any pre-established routine. System records and audit logs corroborate this timing and sequence of events.

• Constructive Interference with ADA Rights
• Action for Protected Medical Disclosure
• Payroll Action (WHD/DOL)
• Violation of Confidentiality and Due Process

Ongoing Timeline, Record Falsification, and Bad Faith

This timeline meticulously chronicles a persistent pattern of misconduct and alleged actions, detailing specific events and communications that unequivocally demonstrate a profound disregard for the Complainant's rights and a manifest absence of good faith.

• June 19, 2024: Complainant formally requests medical leave from his supervisor, Donte Holmes. The supervisor subsequently provides instructions regarding FMLA and medical leave via the Employee Service Center (ESC).

  Proof: Contemporaneous email/text correspondence and Workday logs.

• June 20, 2024: The supervisor, with direct assistance from HR Director Azariah Workman (as evidenced by Workday system logs), generates and issues a negative evaluation and written warning. This action occurs immediately subsequent to the protected leave request.

  Proof: Workday system logs.

• June 25, 2024: Complainant formally requests the correction and removal of the improper warning from HR and management.

  Proof: Email/ticket submitted to HR.

• July–August 2024: Complainant continues to pursue resolution, submitting additional requests and tickets to HR. Cox/HR fails to act promptly or to provide written confirmation of the warning's removal.

  Proof: HR ticket logs and email chains.

• September 2024: Despite numerous requests and HR’s eventual acknowledgment that the warning should have been rescinded, the written warning remains in the Complainant's record and is referenced by Cox in ongoing proceedings and position statements.

  Proof: Email chains, HR ticket logs, and screenshots.

• June 27, 2024: Azariah Workman provides the "Physician Accommodation Request" form, yet subsequently alleges that the process was not adhered to or that documentation was deficient.

  Proof: Workman’s own system logs.

• July 1–18, 2024: Complainant repeatedly seeks resolution for outstanding payroll, leave, and accommodation issues. Workman’s responses during this period are characterized by delay, vagueness, and a lack of substantive engagement.

  Proof: Documented correspondence.

• July 9, 2024: Workman acknowledges receipt of the accommodation request but merely offers to “discuss the details further when you return from your leave in September”. This constitutes a deliberate stalling tactic, directly contravening the ADA’s requirement for a prompt interactive process.

  Proof: Email correspondence.

• July 11, 2024: Workman asserts that Complainant unilaterally closed his own leave case and is "not on an approved leave". This assertion disregards the underlying actions and Workman's direct role in obstructing the accommodation process.

  Proof: Comparison of Workman’s statements versus Complainant’s documented record.

• July 18, 2024: Complainant meticulously documents a comprehensive list of unresolved issues, including payroll discrepancies, system access impediments, and failures in ADA/FMLA compliance. Workman’s continued lack of substantive response provides further evidence of ongoing bad faith.

  Proof: Complainant’s detailed documentation.

• Late July–September 2024: Despite repeated outreach efforts, Workman and HR fail to correct records, restore pay, or rectify ADA/FMLA violations. The written warning, despite having been rescinded, remains in the record, and pay cessation is directly traceable to Workman’s actions.

  Proof: Correspondence and payroll records.

• Direct Action: The temporal proximity—less than 24 hours—between the Complainant's protected activity (request for leave) and the adverse employment action (issuance of a written warning) constitutes classic "smoking gun" evidence of action under 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) and EEOC Enforcement Guidance.
• Perjury and False Statements: Cox's position statement falsely claims that the warning predated the leave request. Documentary evidence incontrovertibly proves the inverse, thereby constituting perjury under 18 U.S.C. § 1001 and providing grounds for an adverse inference.
• Ongoing Bad Faith and Record Falsification: Cox's persistent failure to remove the rescinded warning, notwithstanding HR's prior confirmation of its removal, signifies ongoing bad faith and potentially spoliation of evidence.
• Continued Misrepresentation: Cox's sustained reference to the rescinded warning in agency filings, subsequent to being formally notified of its removal, demonstrates knowing misrepresentation and may constitute obstruction of justice.

• All subsequent statements, policies, and denials issued by Cox Communications must be critically re-evaluated in light of this initial, documented act of action and bad faith. Every assertion of "policy compliance" or "good faith" is inherently tainted by Ms. Workman’s central role in the foundational violation.
• Perjury and False Statements: Ms. Workman's and Cox's continued misrepresentations to the EEOC are not mere oversights; they are deliberate, knowing falsehoods subject to legal sanction and adverse inference.
• Systemic Failure: The cumulative correspondence and evidentiary record reveal not isolated errors, but rather a systemic pattern of action, undue delay, and concerted efforts to conceal pertinent information.
• Notice to EEOC and All Agencies: The EEOC's failure to adequately address these documented issues, despite having been provided with compelling evidence months prior, itself represents a procedural deficiency and fully justifies the Complainant's demand for sworn affidavits, cross-examination, and comprehensive cross-agency enforcement.

Systematic Forensic Drilldown

This section details identified procedural and substantive violations, outlining the responsible principals, relevant records, necessary data extraction, and explicit demands for substantiation.