UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NORFOLK AREA OFFICE - MID-ATLANTIC REGION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Thomas D. Coates, Complainant

v.

Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent

EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001

DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD  |  DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]

Date: June 3, 2025

To: Mrs. Elizabeth Rader, District Director, Charlotte District Office

Cc: Ms. Veronica Chaney, District Director's Secretary

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

129 W. Trade Street, Ste. 400

Charlotte, NC 28202

veronica.chaney@eeoc.gov

EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001

Formal Rebuttal and Declaration

Thomas D. Coates

To: Mrs. Elizabeth Rader, District Director, Charlotte District Office

Cc: Ms. Veronica Chaney, District Director's Secretary

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

129 W. Trade Street, Ste. 400, Charlotte, NC 28202

veronica.chaney@eeoc.gov

Date: June 3, 2025

Table of Contents

• Personal Statement

• Declaration and VEC Ruling

• Corollary: Right to Supplement

• Notice of Additional Violations

• Request for Oversight

• Summary of Requested Relief

• Signature & Attachments

Personal Statement

Mrs. Rader, Ms. Chaney,

I write to you today not merely as a complainant with a case number, but as a single father, a heart patient recovering from bypass surgery, and a man whose every day is shaped by the profound needs of a son with a chronic illness. My life has been a tapestry of long nights in hospital rooms and even longer days striving to hold together a life for my family. Through it all, I have worked, I have believed in due process, and I have trusted that when I reached out for help, the law would be there.

When I sought basic decency from Cox Communications—a fair chance to heal, a return to work with reasonable accommodations, and a response to my earnest pleas—I was met with a cold, unyielding bureaucracy. Compassion was absent. Instead, they misrepresented my physician's orders, my rightful pay was delayed, my confidential medical information was shared without my consent, and I was terminated with a form letter that disregarded every fact and every protection afforded to individuals in my vulnerable position.

Back to Top

Declaration and VEC Ruling

Headline Statement: The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), after being formally requested to certify and integrate ADA, EEOC, and federal compliance considerations into its ruling, reversed the employer's separation decision in my favor. This reversal, issued after explicit invocation of federal law, constitutes an independent, state-level finding that Cox Communications' actions violated my rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act and related federal statutes.

Declaration: The VEC's Affirmation of Medical Separation

On March 27, 2025, I submitted a formal pre-hearing motion to the VEC, requesting that the Appeals Examiner acknowledge and integrate all relevant federal employment protections—including the ADA, EEOC guidelines, and FMLA—into the adjudication of my appeal. I specifically requested written certification that these federal considerations would be factored into the final decision, and clarification regarding coordination with ongoing federal proceedings.

The VEC subsequently issued a reversal ruling in my favor, finding that my separation from Cox Communications was not a voluntary resignation, but rather was for medical reasons, and that I could not be denied benefits. This finding directly contradicts Cox's assertion that my employment ended due to voluntary resignation and failure to provide documentation.

"His separation appears to have been a total separation for medical reasons and was not a separation or reduction in force due to a reduction in available work by the employer... the claimant cannot be denied benefits..."

(VEC Decision, May 8, 2025)

• I was a qualified individual with a disability, entitled to reasonable accommodation.

• I provided timely, medically authorized documentation for my return to work.

• Cox Communications failed to accommodate, failed to engage in the interactive process, and retaliated against me for asserting my rights.

• My separation was not voluntary, nor was it due to misconduct or non-compliance.

The VEC's decision, in light of my formal request for federal law consideration, enhances the evidentiary value of the ruling for all ongoing and future federal proceedings, including this EEOC appeal. It also demonstrates inter-agency consistency and procedural fairness, and prevents Cox from claiming that federal issues were not addressed or that the VEC's decision is irrelevant to ADA/EEOC matters.

Back to Top

Corollary: Preservation of Right to Supplement and Full Disclosure

I respectfully emphasize that while this submission includes significant new evidence, recent appeals decisions, and statutory documentation, it is by no means the entirety of my case. Due to the rushed and, at times, misleading guidance from the assigned investigator—including summary actions and repeated procedural shortcuts—I have not been afforded a fair or reasonable opportunity to present all of my evidence and arguments. Critical issues, such as MetLife HIPAA violations, payroll discrepancies, and contamination of the Virginia Employment Commission case by Cox's misrepresentations, remain to be fully documented and disclosed.

It is essential to understand that my efforts to respond to shifting deadlines and summary closures have forced me to prioritize the most urgent and accessible evidence in this submission. This does not reflect the full scope of violations and supporting documentation in my possession. I have been compelled to defend against procedural improprieties rather than to present my case in a comprehensive and orderly manner.

Therefore, I expressly reserve the right to supplement this record with additional evidence and argument—including, but not limited to, further proof of HIPAA violations, payroll misconduct, and interference with state agency proceedings—as this matter proceeds. I urge the Commission not to construe this filing as a waiver or limitation of my claims, but rather as a necessary step to reopen and properly investigate a case that has not yet received the full and fair review required by law.

Back to Top

Notice of Additional and Ongoing Violations

I also submit formal notice of a new charge in development. This charge concerns ongoing and independent violations by Cox Communications and MetLife that include:

• Improper coordination to block disability benefits while the employee was under active cardiology care.

• Constructive discharge without notice or ADA-compliant engagement.

• Factual manipulation of pay records, protected leave, and system access to preempt litigation.

These acts occurred after the primary charge was submitted and must be considered independently under new EEOC charge procedures. Please ensure this new inquiry is properly docketed and assigned.

Back to Top

Request for Supervisory and Inspector General Oversight

Given the documented irregularities, I respectfully renew my request for:

• Full record review by District Director Rader.

• Oversight by the Office of the General Counsel and Office of Inspector General, pursuant to MD-110 and 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 (Administrative Procedure Act).

• Access to all internal memos, correspondence, and communications involving my charge.

Back to Top

Summary of Requested Relief

I respectfully urge the Commission to:

• Reopen my EEOC charge and conduct a full, fair, and independent review of all evidence, including new and previously unreviewed statutory evidence.

• Order sworn testimony and data preservation from all relevant parties.

• Ensure cross-agency coordination with DOJ, DOL, and state agencies as appropriate.

• Permit me to supplement the record as needed to ensure a complete and just adjudication.

Back to Top

Signature & Attachments

With respect and hope,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com | (757) 374-3539

Dated: June 5, 2025

Attachments:

Exhibit A: March 27, 2025 Letter to VEC

Exhibit B: VEC Decision (May 8, 2025)

(Additional exhibits: MetLife correspondence, payroll records, physician's letter, evidence of confidentiality breach, unsigned Cox position statement, timeline of events, and Part B rebuttal/statutory evidence.)

Back to Top

                           With respect and hope,

                           /s/ Thomas D. Coates

Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com | (757) 374-3539

Dated: June 5, 2025

Attachments:

Exhibit A: March 27, 2025 Letter to VEC

Exhibit B: VEC Decision (May 8, 2025)

Exhibit C: MetLife correspondence

Exhibit D: Payroll records

Exhibit E: Physician's letter

Exhibit F: Evidence of confidentiality breach

Exhibit G: Unsigned Cox position statement

Exhibit H: Timeline of events

Exhibit I: Part B rebuttal/statutory evidence

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NORFOLK AREA OFFICE – MID-ATLANTIC REGION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Thomas D. Coates, Claimant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD | DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]

NOTICE OF MEMORIALIZATION OF NEW EVIDENCE AND RECONSIDERATION OF UPDATED EVIDENCE (PART A)

This submission constitutes Part A of a two-part memorialization and statutory reconsideration of both new and updated evidence relevant to Cox Communications’ April 2025 Position Statement and all associated representations, system transactions, and correspondence.
Part B, forthcoming, will provide a comprehensive analysis of payroll records, the interaction of payroll with government reporting, and the impact on the IRS, Social Security Administration, Virginia Employment Commission, and the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.

Table of Contents

• I. Introduction and Docketing Request

• II. Material Assertions and Representations at Issue

• III. Statutory and Procedural Foundation

• IV. Relief Sought

• V. Systematic Forensic Breakdown of Top 10 Infractions

• VI. Narrative of Retaliation and Constructive Obstruction: The Azariah Workman Event – June 28, 2024

• VII. Material False Statements Requiring Sworn Correction

• VIII. Statutory and Regulatory Standards for Veracity and Evidentiary Support

• IX. Professional and Agency Referral

• X. Addendum: Transformative Evidence – The Workman Correspondence and Its Ripple Effects

• XI. Addendum: Persistent Retaliation, Record Tampering, and Bad Faith (June–September 2024)

• XII. Addendum: Anticipated Defenses, Rationalizations, and Procedural Safeguards

• XIII. CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions in April 2025 Position Statement

• XIV. Declaration of Material Contradictions: MetLife Disability File versus Administrative Record

• XV. Violations: Addendum: Executive Knowledge, Fiduciary Breach, and the Interwoven Evidentiary Chain

• XVI. Protected Activity Chronology and Reporting Digest

• XVII. Certification and Digital Endorsement

• XVIII. Service Attestation

I. Introduction and Docketing Request

This motion and its annexes are submitted for immediate transmittal and coordinated review by the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Justice, Virginia Office of the State Inspector General, and the Office of the Governor of Virginia, as well as any other oversight body with statutory interest in the matters described herein.

Back to Table of Contents

II. Material Assertions and Representations at Issue

This motion concerns not only material statements submitted by Respondent’s counsel in Cox’s April 2025 position statement to the EEOC, but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox’s principals, agents, and HR personnel in any form—including but not limited to:

• Position statements and supplemental filings submitted to the EEOC or other agencies;

• Emails and written correspondence by supervisors, HR, or management;

• Teams, Slack, or other internal chat communications relevant to leave, accommodation, or discipline;

• Workday, payroll, or HR system input and audit logs;

• Internal notes, digital logs, and records of meetings or corrective actions;

• Any other documented or system-captured assertion or representation made by Cox or its agents regarding Claimant’s employment, leave, discipline, or accommodation.

These statements are contradicted by direct documentary evidence and constitute perjury, retaliation, and ongoing bad faith. The Claimant specifically objects to any attempt by Respondent to “fix” or disclaim only the position statement while leaving other false or misleading assertions uncorrected in the broader record. The evidentiary chain is intentionally intertwined: any attempt to remove or alter one “link” (e.g., the position statement) will not defeat the integrity of the overall record, as other communications and system records independently corroborate the violations and inconsistencies at issue.

Back to Table of Contents

III. Statutory and Procedural Foundation

This motion is submitted pursuant to:

• 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA enforcement via Title VII procedures)

• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and (f)(1) (EEOC investigative authority and enforcement)

• 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) and § 1601.18 (submission and use of party statements as evidence)

• Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) (statements of an opposing party as non-hearsay)

• EEOC-DOL-DOJ MOU (2018, revised 2022) for collaborative investigation and systemic referral

The Commission is empowered to preserve and memorialize such statements as binding admissions, subject to cross-agency evidentiary review.

Back to Table of Contents

With respect and hope,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com | (757) 374-3539

Dated: June 5, 2025

Attachments:

Exhibit A: March 27, 2025 Letter to VEC

Exhibit B: VEC Decision (May 8, 2025)

Exhibit C: MetLife correspondence

Exhibit D: Payroll records

Exhibit E: Physician's letter

Exhibit F: Evidence of confidentiality breach

Exhibit G: Unsigned Cox position statement

Exhibit H: Timeline of events

Exhibit I: Part B rebuttal/statutory evidence

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NORFOLK AREA OFFICE – MID-ATLANTIC REGION

IN THE MATTER OF:

Thomas D. Coates, Claimant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD | DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]

NOTICE OF MEMORIALIZATION OF NEW EVIDENCE AND RECONSIDERATION OF UPDATED EVIDENCE (PART A)

This submission constitutes Part A of a two-part memorialization and statutory reconsideration of both new and updated evidence relevant to Cox Communications’ April 2025 Position Statement and all associated representations, system transactions, and correspondence.
Part B, forthcoming, will provide a comprehensive analysis of payroll records, the interaction of payroll with government reporting, and the impact on the IRS, Social Security Administration, Virginia Employment Commission, and the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division.

Table of Contents

• I. Introduction and Docketing Request

• II. Material Assertions and Representations at Issue

• III. Statutory and Procedural Foundation

• IV. Relief Sought

• V. Systematic Forensic Breakdown of Top 10 Infractions

• VI. Narrative of Retaliation and Constructive Obstruction: The Azariah Workman Event – June 28, 2024

• VII. Material False Statements Requiring Sworn Correction

• VIII. Statutory and Regulatory Standards for Veracity and Evidentiary Support

• IX. Professional and Agency Referral

• X. Addendum: Transformative Evidence – The Workman Correspondence and Its Ripple Effects

• XI. Addendum: Persistent Retaliation, Record Tampering, and Bad Faith (June–September 2024)

• XII. Addendum: Anticipated Defenses, Rationalizations, and Procedural Safeguards

• XIII. CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions in April 2025 Position Statement

• XIV. Declaration of Material Contradictions: MetLife Disability File versus Administrative Record

• XV. Violations: Addendum: Executive Knowledge, Fiduciary Breach, and the Interwoven Evidentiary Chain

• XVI. Protected Activity Chronology and Reporting Digest

• XVII. Certification and Digital Endorsement

• XVIII. Service Attestation

I. Introduction and Docketing Request

This motion and its annexes are submitted for immediate transmittal and coordinated review by the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Justice, Virginia Office of the State Inspector General, and the Office of the Governor of Virginia, as well as any other oversight body with statutory interest in the matters described herein.

Back to Table of Contents

II. Material Assertions and Representations at Issue

This motion concerns not only material statements submitted by Respondent’s counsel in Cox’s April 2025 position statement to the EEOC, but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox’s principals, agents, and HR personnel in any form—including but not limited to:

• Position statements and supplemental filings submitted to the EEOC or other agencies;

• Emails and written correspondence by supervisors, HR, or management;

• Teams, Slack, or other internal chat communications relevant to leave, accommodation, or discipline;

• Workday, payroll, or HR system input and audit logs;

• Internal notes, digital logs, and records of meetings or corrective actions;

• Any other documented or system-captured assertion or representation made by Cox or its agents regarding Claimant’s employment, leave, discipline, or accommodation.

These statements are contradicted by direct documentary evidence and constitute perjury, retaliation, and ongoing bad faith. The Claimant specifically objects to any attempt by Respondent to “fix” or disclaim only the position statement while leaving other false or misleading assertions uncorrected in the broader record. The evidentiary chain is intentionally intertwined: any attempt to remove or alter one “link” (e.g., the position statement) will not defeat the integrity of the overall record, as other communications and system records independently corroborate the violations and inconsistencies at issue.

Back to Table of Contents

III. Statutory and Procedural Foundation

This motion is submitted pursuant to:

• 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA enforcement via Title VII procedures)

• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and (f)(1) (EEOC investigative authority and enforcement)

• 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) and § 1601.18 (submission and use of party statements as evidence)

• Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) (statements of an opposing party as non-hearsay)

• EEOC-DOL-DOJ MOU (2018, revised 2022) for collaborative investigation and systemic referral

The Commission is empowered to preserve and memorialize such statements as binding admissions, subject to cross-agency evidentiary review.

Back to Table of Contents

IV. Relief Sought

The Claimant respectfully requests that the EEOC and cross-agency recipients:

1. Enter this motion and the cited material statement into the permanent record for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001;

2. Formally memorialize the quoted material statement as a material representation in the record, subject to Rule 801(d)(2) admissions;

3. Order Cox Communications to admit, clarify, or deny this material statement within 10 business days, or else treat it as an evidentiary admission for all investigative and judicial purposes;

4. Refer any systemic findings arising from this statement to DOJ Civil Rights Division and DOL WHD;

5. Distribute a certified copy of this motion and the quoted material statement to all relevant oversight agencies for synchronized review.

Back to Table of Contents

V. Systematic Forensic Breakdown of Top 10 Infractions

All individuals above are required to:

• Preserve and produce all emails, internal chat logs (Teams, Slack), Workday/HRIS records, and any documentation relating to leave, accommodation, payroll, discipline, compliance, or any matter relevant to this proceeding;

• Provide sworn affidavits or be available for deposition/interview regarding their knowledge, decisions, and participation in the creation, approval, or dissemination of the Cox April 2025 Position Statement and any related communications, system entries, or actions impacting the Complainant or this case;

• Correct the record for any false, misleading, or unsupported statements for which they were responsible or had knowledge, whether in the position statement or any other form or forum;

• Comply with all legal, regulatory, and ethical obligations to ensure the accuracy, integrity, and preservation of the record for EEOC, DOL, DOJ, and judicial review.

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.

Back to Table of Contents

VI. Narrative of Retaliation and Constructive Obstruction: The Azariah Workman Event – June 28, 2024

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.

I. Factual Recitation

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 son’s 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 Coates’s 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:

"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 hours of that interaction, Ms. Workman accessed the Workday system and suspended Coates’s 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 accommodation—an 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.

II. Human Impact and Statutory Protections Violated

III. Statutory Violations Identified

1. Retaliation under ADA Title I: 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) prohibits retaliation against an individual for requesting reasonable accommodations or reporting discrimination.

2. Constructive Obstruction of Medical Leave (FMLA): 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2) prohibits employers from interfering with or retaliating against the use of FMLA-protected leave. Chest pain and physician care are triggers under serious health condition definitions.

3. Violation of EEOC Confidentiality Standards: 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c)(1)(i) prohibits the disclosure of confidential medical information to unauthorized personnel.

4. Failure to Engage in Good-Faith Interactive Process: EEOC Guidance mandates employers to actively assist in accommodation after disclosure. Instead, the employer took punitive action.

5. Constructive Discharge and Payroll Withholding: Cutting pay following a protected medical disclosure, without notice or process, constitutes constructive interference under 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 and can rise to constructive discharge if continued.

6. Bad Faith Retaliatory Documentation: The creation of an unprompted negative evaluation, temporally adjacent to a medical disclosure, demonstrates retaliatory animus and violates 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

IV. Pretextual Conduct and Contradictions in the Record

Return to Table of Contents

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 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.

Legal & Evidentiary Implications:

• 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.

Paradigm Shift – How This Changes the Legal Landscape:

• 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.

• 
  

Return to Table of Contents

V. Legal Designation of the Violation

• Constructive Obstruction of ADA Rights

• Retaliation for Protected Medical Disclosure

• Payroll Retaliation (WHD/DOL)

• Violation of Confidentiality and Due Process

VI. Call to Action for Agencies and Record Review

This singular incident should be formally memorialized and transmitted to:

• EEOC (Charge No. 12K-2025-00001) – Retaliation, failure to accommodate, due process denial

• DOL WHD – Unlawful payroll withholding

• DOJ Civil Rights Division – Disability-based discrimination

• OSIG Virginia – State-level labor violations

• IRS/SSA – For wage/tax misreporting review

All parties and agencies are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this incident and its evidentiary record in accordance with applicable law.

Memorialization and Legal Notice:

• This incident is entered into the permanent record and is subject to cross-agency and judicial review.

• Any attempt to disclaim, “fix,” or distance from these actions will not defeat the evidentiary chain, as the record is independently corroborated by system logs, emails, and contemporaneous documentation.

• 
  

Return to Table of Contents

VII. Material False Statements Requiring Sworn Correction

Material Contradictions: MetLife File vs. Cox Position Statement

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.

Return to Table of Contents

 IMMINENT SUBMISSION OF CRUCIAL EVIDENCE

I hereby notify the District Office and all oversight agencies that, in the coming days, I will be submitting a comprehensive series of motions and evidentiary addenda. These will include, but are not limited to:

• Medical documentation (ADA, FMLA, HIPAA-protected)

• Payroll and IRS/SSA reporting records

• Evidence of confidentiality and data handling violations

• Detailed timelines of retaliation, record falsification, and bad faith

• Cross-agency correspondence and legal filings

This evidence is crucial to the fair adjudication of this matter and must be reviewed by an impartial and procedurally compliant investigator.

VIII. Statutory and Regulatory Standards for Veracity and Evidentiary Support

This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.

• EEOC Standards and Guidance:

• EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements

• EEOC Enforcement Guidance (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15)

• EEOC Federal Sector Management Directive 110 (MD-110)

• Other Federal Agency Standards:

• U.S. Department of Labor (DOL): 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (Administrative Procedure Act)

• U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA Investigations

• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (Summary Judgment):

• Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

• Professional Standards and Best Practices:

• National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) - Code of Conduct

• American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.3

Back to Table of Contents

IX. Professional and Agency Referral

In light of these standards, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR), the American Bar Association (ABA) Professional Responsibility Committee, or a similar professional standards body for independent review. The purpose is to determine whether the statement meets the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and agency practice.

Back to Table of Contents

X. Addendum: Transformative Evidence – The Workman Correspondence and Its Ripple Effects

Back to Table of Contents

XI. Addendum: Persistent Retaliation, Record Tampering, and Bad Faith (June–September 2024)

I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

II. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

III. STATUTES AND POLICIES VIOLATED

IV. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES & FALSE ASSERTIONS

V. POLICY ANALYSIS

VI. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES & RELATED INDIVIDUALS

VII. PRIOR FILINGS & EVIDENCE OF PATTERN

VIII. EXHIBITS & EVIDENCE

• Ex. 6A Wilson, Keith (CCI-Atlanta) <Keith.Wilson@cox.com> Wilson letter, email

• https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 ADA FORM

• Emails with executives for Kia Painter's emails

• Ex 6B : I will immediately fix it and present the full text directly on screen from now on, or I will provide HTML copyable code, never an image or an inaccessible format unless you explicitly ask for it. Let’s correct it right now. Here’s the full scaffolded, formal, detailed report based on your "Formal Demand for Remediation" email — laid out properly in clear, structured text directly here:

IX. RELIEF AND REMEDIES SOUGHT

1. Immediate reinstatement with accommodations under the ADA.

2. The company do due diligence for the violations that have been committed under law.

3. That the company look to reconsile.

4. Relief.

X. SERVICE AND NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES

• EEOC Norfolk Area Office

• Cox Communications, Inc. HR and Legal

• Department Of Labor

• Disability Rights Groups

• US Merit system protection act (if US military employed with Cox)

Notice: This addendum is intended to satisfy the recordkeeping, disclosure, and transmission requirements of all referenced agencies and courts. All parties are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this record in accordance with applicable law.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539

Back to Table of Contents

XII. Addendum: Anticipated Defenses, Rationalizations, and Procedural Safeguards

Back to Table of Contents

XIII. CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions in April 2025 Position Statement

CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions in April 2025 Position Statement

Date: [Insert Date]
To: [EEOC Investigator, HR, or relevant recipient]
From: Thomas Coates
Subject: Addendum – Memorialization and Challenge of Unsupported Statements

Purpose
This addendum memorializes and formally challenges 48 specific statements made in Cox’s April 2025 Position Statement that lack direct documentary support, legal anchoring, or are unsupported rationalizations. Each statement is referenced by page number. For each, I demand supporting documentation and/or a sworn affidavit. Where such substantiation cannot be produced, I respectfully request the statement be stricken from the record and that an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for making unsupported factual claims.

Legal Basis
The EEOC and courts require factual assertions in position statements to be supported by evidence (affidavits, business records, or documentation). Unsupported or speculative statements are improper and should not be considered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and EEOC guidance on position statements.

Requested Relief
That each identified unsupported statement be stricken from the record unless Cox can provide admissible evidence or a sworn affidavit substantiating the claim.
That the record reflect these statements as unsubstantiated and improper.
That an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for any statement made without a good faith evidentiary basis.
That this addendum be attached to and considered part of the official record in this matter.

Conclusion
I reserve the right to supplement this addendum as further unsupported statements are identified. I respectfully request prompt action on this matter to preserve the integrity of the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Coates
June 5, 2025

Back to Table of Contents

XIV. Declaration of Material Contradictions: MetLife Disability File versus Administrative Record

Back to Table of Contents

XV. Addendum: Executive Knowledge, Fiduciary Breach, and the Interwoven Evidentiary Chain

I. Scope of Material Assertions and Communications

This addendum expressly incorporates not only the Cox April 2025 position statement but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox’s principals, executives, and HR personnel in any form, including:

• Emails, Teams/Slack/internal chats, and written correspondence by supervisors, HR, or management;

• Workday, payroll, or HR system input, audit logs, and digital notes;

• Internal meeting notes, Teams chat logs, and any communication copied to or involving executives or compliance officers (including Ms. Painter);

• Any documented assertion, directive, or omission by Cox or its agents regarding Complainant’s employment, leave, discipline, or accommodation.

The evidentiary chain is intentionally intertwined: any attempt to “fix” or disclaim a single document (e.g., the position statement) will not defeat the integrity of the record, as other communications and system records independently corroborate the violations and inconsistencies at issue.

II. Executive and Compliance Officer Responsibility

The record shows that multiple Cox executives and compliance officers, including Ms. Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), were copied on critical correspondence and were fully aware of the ongoing retaliation and ADA/EEO violations as early as July 2024. These leaders had both a statutory and fiduciary duty to intervene, investigate, and remediate upon receiving evidence of discrimination or a formal EEO/ADA request for help. Their inaction directly enabled the ongoing harm, and their silence constitutes a breach of duty under federal and state law.

III. Systemic and Paradigm-Shifting Implications

The failure of Cox’s highest compliance officer to act on clear evidence of retaliation and ADA violations is itself a violation of law and policy, and raises serious questions about systemic compliance failures at Cox. This pattern is not isolated. If the Chief Compliance Officer and other executives can “turn a blind eye” to such clear-cut evidence, it signals a broader culture of noncompliance and exposes the company to enhanced scrutiny and cross-agency enforcement. This addendum is intended to serve as a model for escalation in all similar Cox cases, and to notify oversight agencies that these failures are not happening in a vacuum.

IV. Independent Standing of Addenda

Each addendum submitted herein is intended to have independent legal force and effect, and should be considered, adjudicated, and preserved in the record regardless of the disposition of the main motion. The facts, legal arguments, and relief requested in this addendum are severable and should be ruled upon independently as necessary to ensure a full and fair adjudication of all issues presented.

The EEOC and all oversight agencies are specifically notified that the scope of this motion and all addenda includes the full web of communications, not just the position statement. Any attempt to “fix” or disclaim a single link in the chain will not defeat the evidentiary record, as the intertwined communications and executive knowledge establish ongoing, systemic violations and fiduciary breaches.

Legal and Regulatory Standards for Accuracy and Factual Support

Introduction:
This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.

EEOC Standards and Guidance
EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements:
“A position statement should be clear, concise, complete, and responsive to the allegations. It should provide specific, factual information, including documentation where possible, and avoid unsupported generalizations or conclusory statements.”
Source: EEOC Respondent Position Statement Guidelines
EEOC Enforcement Guidance (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15):
“Each party shall have the right to submit statements and evidence. The Commission shall accord substantial weight to documentary evidence and sworn statements, and shall disregard unsupported allegations.”
EEOC Federal Sector Management Directive 110 (MD-110):
“All factual assertions should be supported by documentary evidence or sworn testimony. Investigators and fact-finders must disregard statements that are not supported by evidence.”

Other Federal Agency Standards
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL):
“All findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Unsupported assertions or conclusions are insufficient.”
See: 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (Administrative Procedure Act)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA Investigations:
“Each claim must be supported by evidence, including affidavits, records, or other documentation. Unsupported statements are not credited.”
See: DOJ ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, Sec. II-3.6100
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (Summary Judgment):
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by…citing to particular parts of materials in the record…or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.”
See: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)

Professional Standards and Best Practices
National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) – Code of Conduct:
“Members must ensure that all factual representations and legal arguments are supported by evidence and are not misleading, speculative, or conclusory.”
See: NADR Code of Conduct
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.3:
“A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”

Referral for Standards Review
In light of these requirements, I request that this addendum and the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) or a similar professional standards body for review. The purpose is to ensure that all statements made in the position paper meet the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and professional codes.

Back to Table of Contents

XVI. Protected Activity Chronology and Reporting Digest

Back to Table of Contents

XVII. Certification and Digital Endorsement

Back to Table of Contents

XVIII. Service Attestation

Back to Table of Contents

Anticipation of Part B

The Claimant notifies all reviewing agencies and parties that Part B will be forthcoming and will focus on the analysis of payroll practices, the interaction of payroll data with federal and state reporting obligations, and the impact on the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, Virginia Employment Commission, and the Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. Part B will memorialize additional new evidence and provide reconsideration of updated evidence concerning wage reporting, payroll discrepancies, and statutory compliance.

Footnotes

Section I: Introduction. See Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq.

Section III: Statutory and Procedural Foundation. Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.

Section III: Statutory and Procedural Foundation. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15 (EEOC regulations on party statements).

Section IV: Relief Sought. See EEOC Charge Processing Procedures, EEOC.gov.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. “Unsigned, Unverified Submission” – See 29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(c) (requirement for verification of submissions).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Workday Audit Log, June 28, 2024 (internal document, on file with Claimant).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. “Absence of Sworn Declarations” – See EEOC Enforcement Guidance (1996), Part IV(A).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. “Confidentiality in Medical Disclosures” – 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(C).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2); see also DOL FMLA Guidance.

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. Workday Payroll Freeze Entry, 06/28/2024 (internal record).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Retaliation and Related Issues (2016), available at EEOC.gov.

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. “Constructive Discharge” – See Cornell Law: Constructive Discharge.

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. Internal correspondence, Azariah Workman to HR, July 2024 (on file with Claimant).

Section VII: Material False Statements. MetLife Disability File, Exhibit J (internal document).

Section VII: Material False Statements. See SSA Blue Book for disability definitions.

Section VII: Material False Statements. IRS Payroll Reporting Guidelines, IRS.gov.

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements, EEOC.gov.

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (Administrative Procedure Act).

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. DOJ ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, Sec. II-3.6100.

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56(c).

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) Code of Conduct.

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.3.

Section IX: Professional Referral. See “Drafting Effective Position Statements: Best Practices for Respondents,” Boston College Law Review, Vol. 59, No. 2 (2018).

Section X: Workman Correspondence. Email from Workman to Claimant, July 9, 2024 (internal).

Section X: Workman Correspondence. “Interactive Process” – 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3).

Section X: Workman Correspondence. EEOC Guidance on “Promptness” in ADA Interactive Process, EEOC.gov.

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. Workday System Log, June 20, 2024 (internal record).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (spoliation).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 (recordkeeping requirements).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. EEOC Position Statement, April 2025, p. 12 (on file).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. HR Center Written Confirmation, August 2024 (internal).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. See EEOC “Respondent’s Position Statement Guidelines,” EEOC.gov.

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. “Pretext” in employment law – see McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. “After-the-Fact Correction” – see EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 809 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2016).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. “Procedural Gamesmanship” – see DOJ Title VII Guidance.

Section XIII: CoxTrack Addendum. Internal CoxTrack Audit, July–September 2024 (on file).

Section XIV: Declaration of Contradictions. MetLife Disability File, November 2024 (internal document).

Section XIV: Declaration of Contradictions. Administrative Record, HRIS, July 2024 (on file).

Section XV: Executive Knowledge. Email chain: Executive Review, April 2025 (internal).

Section XV: Executive Knowledge. See “Fiduciary Duty in Employment Law,” ABA Practice Guide (2022).

Section XVI: Protected Activity Chronology. Claimant’s FMLA Application, June 19, 2024 (internal).

Section XVI: Protected Activity Chronology. EEOC Charge Filing, December 2024 (on file).

Section XVI: Protected Activity Chronology. MetLife Coordination Email, October 2024 (internal).

Section XVI: Protected Activity Chronology. DOL WHD Complaint, January 2025 (on file).

Section XVII: Certification. Electronic signature is valid under ESIGN Act, 15 U.S.C. § 7001 et seq.

Section XVIII: Service Attestation. Proof of service, USPS Certified Mail Receipt, April 2025 (on file).

Section XVIII: Service Attestation. EEOC Portal Submission Receipt, April 2025 (internal).

General: For definition of “adverse action,” see EEOC Adverse Action.

General: For “interactive process” requirements, see Job Accommodation Network (JAN).

General: For “constructive interference,” see 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 and related case law.

General: For “bad faith” in ADA/FMLA, see EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2009).

General: For “retaliatory animus,” see Univ. of Texas Southwestern Med. Ctr. v. Nassar, 570 U.S. 338 (2013).

General: For “spoliation of evidence,” see Cornell Law: Spoliation.

General: For “pretextual conduct,” see Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).

General: For “pattern or practice” discrimination, see Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters v. United States, 431 U.S. 324 (1977).

General: For “adverse inference,” see Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

General: For “interactive process delay,” see Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000).

General: For “reasonable accommodation,” see 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).

General: For “constructive notice,” see Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).

General: For “procedural due process,” see Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985).

General: For “wage misreporting,” see DOL Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet #21.

General: For “IRS/SSA reporting,” see IRS Pub. 15 (Circular E), Employer’s Tax Guide.

General: For “Virginia Employment Commission” wage reporting, see VEC Employer Tax Guide.

General: For “cross-agency enforcement,” see EEOC-DOJ-DOL MOU (2018, revised 2022).

General: For “electronic records and audit logs,” see 29 C.F.R. § 516.6(a)(1).

General: For “adverse action after protected activity,” see Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001).

General: For “service certification,” see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).

General: For “digital signature validity,” see Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA).

General: For “document preservation,” see EEOC Litigation Hold Notice Guidance.

General: For “agency referral procedures,” see EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 605.

Supplemental Footnotes

Section I: Introduction. See EEOC Charge Filing Procedures, EEOC.gov.

Section II: Material Assertions. For a discussion of evidentiary admissions, see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2).

Section II: Material Assertions. Internal: Teams Chat Log, 06/28/2024, “Medical Leave Request” (on file).

Section II: Material Assertions. For HR recordkeeping, see DOL Recordkeeping Requirements.

Section III: Statutory Basis. For cross-agency memoranda, see EEOC-DOJ-DOL MOU (2018), PDF.

Section III: Statutory Basis. For the definition of “non-hearsay,” see Fed. R. Evid. 801(d).

Section IV: Relief Sought. For agency coordination, see “Interagency Coordination of Civil Rights Enforcement,” Harvard Law Review, Vol. 133 (2020).

Section IV: Relief Sought. For judicial review standards, see 5 U.S.C. § 706 (APA).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For digital signature best practices, see NIST Digital Signature Standard (FIPS PUB 186-4).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Internal: Email approval chain, “Position Statement Finalization,” April 2025 (on file).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For sworn affidavit requirements, see 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For call log subpoena procedures, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 45.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Internal: Workday HRIS Edit Log, July 2024 (on file).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For payroll audit standards, see DOL WHD Fact Sheet #21.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For IRS/SSA wage reporting, see IRS Pub. 15.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Internal: MetLife STD Claim File, July–November 2024 (on file).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For ADA accommodation forms, see ADA National Network.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For legal drafting disclaimers, see ABA Model Rule 1.2(c).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Internal: Performance Review Drafts, June–July 2024 (on file).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For disability harassment guidance, see EEOC Disability Discrimination.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Internal: HR Complaint Log, July 2024 (on file).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For investigation documentation, see EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 605.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Internal: Interview Notes, HR, July 2024 (on file).

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. For case grouping, see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.9.

Section V: Forensic Breakdown. Internal: Legal Memo, “EEOC Charge Consolidation,” April 2025 (on file).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. For “confidentiality breach,” see EEOC v. Ford Motor Co., 531 F.3d 438 (6th Cir. 2008).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. Internal: Negative Evaluation, June 28, 2024 (on file).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. For “temporal proximity” in retaliation, see Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268 (2001).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. For “constructive interference,” see 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. For “bad faith” in ADA, see Barnett v. U.S. Air, Inc., 228 F.3d 1105 (9th Cir. 2000).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. For “adverse inference,” see Zubulake v. UBS Warburg LLC, 220 F.R.D. 212 (S.D.N.Y. 2003).

Section VI: Narrative of Retaliation. Internal: Payroll Inquiry Emails, July 2024 (on file).

Section VII: Material False Statements. For FMLA documentation, see 29 C.F.R. § 825.306.

Section VII: Material False Statements. For “interactive process delay,” see EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2009).

Section VII: Material False Statements. Internal: MetLife Coordination Log, October 2024 (on file).

Section VII: Material False Statements. For “benefit eligibility,” see 29 C.F.R. § 825.301.

Section VII: Material False Statements. For “payroll data accuracy,” see FLSA: 29 U.S.C. § 211(c).

Section VII: Material False Statements. Internal: Final Paycheck Audit, August 2024 (on file).

Section VII: Material False Statements. For “system log audit,” see 29 C.F.R. § 516.6(a)(1).

Section VII: Material False Statements. For “constructive notice,” see Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950).

Section VII: Material False Statements. Internal: HRIS Entry, July 1, 2024 (on file).

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. For “substantial evidence,” see Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951).

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. For “summary judgment,” see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. For “documentary evidence,” see Fed. R. Evid. 1002.

Section VIII: Statutory Standards. For “sworn statement,” see 28 U.S.C. § 1746.

Section IX: Professional Referral. For professional responsibility, see ABA Model Rule 8.3.

Section IX: Professional Referral. For NADR complaint process, see NADR Ethics Complaints.

Section X: Workman Correspondence. Internal: ADA Accommodation Request, June 27, 2024 (on file).

Section X: Workman Correspondence. For “stalling tactic,” see EEOC Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation, Q&A 10.

Section X: Workman Correspondence. Internal: System Access Log, July 2024 (on file).

Section X: Workman Correspondence. For “pattern of non-response,” see EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 809 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2016).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. Internal: HR Ticket Log, July–September 2024 (on file).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. For “spoliation,” see Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. For “ongoing bad faith,” see EEOC v. Chevron Phillips Chem. Co., 570 F.3d 606 (5th Cir. 2009).

Section XI: Retaliation Timeline. Internal: HR Center Email, August 2024 (on file).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. For “lack of knowledge” defense, see Kolstad v. American Dental Ass’n, 527 U.S. 526 (1999).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. For “pretextual justification,” see Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. For “procedural compliance,” see 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. For “after-the-fact correction,” see EEOC v. AutoZone, Inc., 809 F.3d 916 (7th Cir. 2016).

Section XII: Anticipated Defenses. For “internal investigation,” see EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 605..

Violation #6: Systemic Failures in Cox Short-Term Disability (STD) Policy Adherence

I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

II. TIMELINE OF EVENTS & DISCRETE VIOLATIONS

III. STATUTES AND POLICIES VIOLATED

IV. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES & FALSE ASSERTIONS

V. POLICY ANALYSIS

VI. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES & RELATED INDIVIDUALS

VII. PRIOR FILINGS & EVIDENCE OF PATTERN

VIII. EXHIBITS & EVIDENCE

• Ex. 7A: Policy states how commission will be calculated.

• Ex. 7B: Policy mandates and guides how STD should calculate.

• All others (policy) as discussed above

IX. RELIEF AND REMEDIES SOUGHT

1. Immediate correction of STD calculation and payment.

2. Retrain HR and the TPA to proper follow of policy.

3. Make it clear to follow protocol and the laws of FMLA and ADA

X. SERVICE AND NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES

• EEOC Norfolk Area Office

• Cox Communications, Inc. HR and Legal

• U.S. Department of Labor

• Virginia and State oversight

• Any others

Notice: This addendum is intended to satisfy the recordkeeping, disclosure, and transmission requirements of all referenced agencies and courts. All parties are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this record in accordance with applicable law.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539

Dated: June 5, 2025

Violation #2: Breach of Medical Confidentiality, Wage & Hour Violations, and Falsification of Medical Records

I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

II. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

III. STATUTES AND POLICIES VIOLATED

IV. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES & FALSE ASSERTIONS

V. POLICY ANALYSIS

VI. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES & RELATED INDIVIDUALS

VII. PRIOR FILINGS & EVIDENCE OF PATTERN

VIII. EXHIBITS & EVIDENCE

• Ex. 3A: Original physician’s note (scanned copy, email)

• Ex. 3B: Workday/HRIS access log and altered note

• Ex. 3C: Payroll/PTO deduction record

• Ex. 3D: Correspondence to SSA/VEC with altered note

IX. RELIEF AND REMEDIES SOUGHT

1. Immediate investigation of HIPAA, FLSA, and Social Security Act violations

2. Restoration of PTO and correction of wage records

3. Sanctions for breach of confidentiality and false reporting

4. Referral to DOJ, DOL, HHS OCR, and SSA OIG for coordinated enforcement

5. Any other relief deemed just and proper

X. SERVICE AND NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES

• EEOC Norfolk Area Office

• Cox Communications, Inc. HR and Legal

• U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

• U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division

• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office for Civil Rights

• Social Security Administration, Office of Inspector General

• Virginia Office of the State Inspector General

• Other relevant agencies

Notice: This addendum is intended to satisfy the recordkeeping, disclosure, and transmission requirements of all referenced agencies and courts. All parties are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this record in accordance with applicable law.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539

Dated: June 5, 2025

Violation #3: Payroll Manipulation, Retaliation for Complaints, and Whistleblower Suppression

I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

II. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

III. STATUTES AND POLICIES VIOLATED

IV. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES & FALSE ASSERTIONS

V. POLICY ANALYSIS

VI. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES & RELATED INDIVIDUALS

VII. PRIOR FILINGS & EVIDENCE OF PATTERN

VIII. EXHIBITS & EVIDENCE

• Ex. 1A: June 19, 2024 leave request email/text and Workday log

• Ex. 1B: June 20, 2024 Workday system logs showing HR Director involvement in warning

• Ex. 1C: June 25, 2024 request for correction/removal of warning

• Ex. 4A: July 15, 2024 internal complaint about payroll discrepancies

• Ex. 4B: July 20, 2024 payroll records showing unauthorized adjustments

• Ex. 4C: August 5, 2024 email to Chief Compliance Officer with receipt confirmation

• Ex. 4D: August 15, 2024 DOL complaint receipt

• Ex. 4E: August 20, 2024 system access logs and payroll records showing further adverse actions

IX. RELIEF AND REMEDIES SOUGHT

1. Immediate investigation of payroll manipulation and whistleblower suppression

2. Restoration of all improperly deducted wages, PTO, and benefits

3. Sanctions for retaliation against protected activities

4. Referral to DOJ, DOL WHD, OSHA, and SEC for coordinated enforcement

5. Executive accountability for Chief Compliance Officer's failure to act

6. Any other relief deemed just and proper

X. SERVICE AND NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES

• EEOC Norfolk Area Office

• Cox Communications, Inc. HR and Legal

• U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

• U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division

• Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Whistleblower Protection Program

• Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of the Whistleblower

• Virginia Office of the State Inspector General

• Other relevant agencies

Notice: This addendum is intended to satisfy the recordkeeping, disclosure, and transmission requirements of all referenced agencies and courts. All parties are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this record in accordance with applicable law.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539

Dated: June 5, 2025

Violation #4: Retaliatory Misrepresentation of Confidentiality & Suppression of Advocacy Rights

I. PARTIES AND JURISDICTION

II. TIMELINE OF EVENTS

III. STATUTES AND POLICIES VIOLATED

IV. MATERIAL INCONSISTENCIES & FALSE ASSERTIONS

V. POLICY ANALYSIS

VI. RESPONSIBLE PARTIES & RELATED INDIVIDUALS

VII. PRIOR FILINGS & EVIDENCE OF PATTERN

VIII. EXHIBITS & EVIDENCE

• Ex. 5A: Letter sent to Kia Painter (12/05/2024), notifying of intent to engage with advocacy groups.

• Ex. 5B: First page of the 2025 Letter

• Ex. 5C: Rejection of 4/17 and intent to advocate,

IX. RELIEF AND REMEDIES SOUGHT

1. Formal retraction of confidentiality misstatements from the Cox filing.

2. Confirmation that all relevant Cox executives are aware of the ethical and legal obligations.

3. Review of attorney Myers’ conduct by the Virginia State Bar for ethical violations.

4. Referral to DOJ or SEC.

5. Any other relief.

X. SERVICE AND NOTICE TO THIRD PARTIES

• EEOC Norfolk Area Office

• Cox Communications, Inc. HR and Legal

• Attorney Justin Myers, Littler Mendelson, P.C.

• Virginia State Bar (for potential ethical review)

• U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (for potential SOX implications)

• U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division

• SEC Office of the Whistleblower

Notice: This addendum is intended to satisfy the recordkeeping, disclosure, and transmission requirements of all referenced agencies and courts. All parties are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this record in accordance with applicable law.

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539

Dated: June 5, 2025