Please, Do Not Turn Away

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.

Declaration of Thomas D. Coates

Regarding VEC Ruling and Federal Law Consideration

EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001

---

Headline Statement: Virginia Employment Commission Reversal Confirms Medical Separation

Declaration: The VEC's Affirmation of Medical Separation

1. 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.
2. 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)

3. The VEC’s reversal, issued after my motion, strongly implies that the Commission considered and agreed with the relevance and weight of federal protections—including the ADA and EEOC standards—in reaching its decision.
4. This state-level finding, made with federal law in view, provides independent, quasi-judicial confirmation of the following:
   • 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.
5. 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.
6. Attached as Exhibit A is my March 27, 2025 letter to the VEC.
   Attached as Exhibit B is the VEC’s May 8, 2025 decision.

This appeal contains not only this crucial new evidence and recent appeals decisions but also statutory evidence previously unreviewed. I respectfully urge you to look beyond the case number and see the truth—a man who has given everything for his family, now asking only that the law do what it was meant to do: protect, restore, and make whole.

With respect and hope,

---

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.

Declaration of Thomas D. Coates

Regarding VEC Ruling and Federal Law Consideration

EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001

---

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

1. 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.
2. 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)

3. The VEC’s reversal, issued after my motion, strongly implies that the Commission considered and agreed with the relevance and weight of federal protections—including the ADA and EEOC standards—in reaching its decision.
4. This state-level finding, made with federal law in view, provides independent, quasi-judicial confirmation of the following:
   • 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.
5. 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.
6. Attached as Exhibit A is my March 27, 2025 letter to the VEC.
   Attached as Exhibit B is the VEC’s May 8, 2025 decision.

But the story is not just mine. It is written in the official records you now hold:

• The Virginia Employment Commission found my separation was for medical reasons, not voluntary resignation, directly contradicting Cox’s claim and their January 3, 2025 letter:

  “Your failure to return to work constitutes a voluntary resignation under Cox’s Unpaid Leave of Absence policy.”

• MetLife accepted my physician’s documentation and approved my return to work, while Cox told you and others I had failed to provide it.

• Payroll records confirm delays and withheld commissions, compounding the harm to my family when we were most vulnerable.

• Cox’s HR mischaracterized my doctor’s orders, then required me to “restart” the accommodation process after I had already complied—an endless loop designed to exhaust, not to help.

• Confidential medical details were shared without my consent, a violation of trust and law.

• Their position statement—unsigned, unverified—stands as a statutory stop sign. Yet the process moved on, my motions and evidence unconsidered, my rebuttals unread, my voice unheard—including evidence and arguments that were specifically and repeatedly announced as forthcoming, such as Part B of my rebuttal, which was never allowed to be submitted or reviewed.

How can the EEOC, with the existence of this statutory stop sign, drive on past motions and requests and allow an investigator to act with impunity? How can a process that is meant to protect the powerless become another closed door?

I am not a lawyer. I am a father, a patient, and a human being who has tried—at every turn—to do what is right, to follow the rules, to believe in justice. I have filed every motion, preserved every record, submitted every piece of evidence, and yet, the evidence has not even been reviewed. New evidence—yes—but also evidence that has never been seen, never been heard.

Please, do not turn away for the sake of brevity.
Look at this evidence. See the truth. See me—not as a case number, but as a man who has given everything he has for his family, and who now asks only that the law do what it was meant to do: protect, restore, and make whole.

With respect and hope,

(Please see attached: VEC decision, MetLife correspondence, payroll records, physician’s letter, evidence of confidentiality breach, unsigned Cox position statement, and detailed timeline of events, as well as the previously announced but unreviewed Part B rebuttal and statutory evidence.)

Subject: Request for Formal Reconsideration and Supervisory Review – EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001

From: Thomas D. Coates

To: Veronica R. Chaney, District Director’s Secretary – U.S. EEOC (veronica.chaney@eeoc.gov)

Cc: Norberto Rosa-Ramos (norberto.rosa-ramos@eeoc.gov), Melinda Dugas (melinda.dugas@eeoc.gov), Andrew Rogers (andrew.rogers@eeoc.gov), Carol Miaskoff (carol.miaskoff@eeoc.gov), Inspector General Joyce T. Willoughby (inspector.general@eeoc.gov)

Date: May 31, 2025

RE: EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 – Formal Request for Reconsideration, Supplemental Filing, and New Charge Notification

---

I. Reconsideration Request: Basis and Legal Foundation

The May 28, 2025 dismissal of my charge was procedurally and substantively defective. I urge the Charlotte District Director, Mrs. Elizabeth Rader, to reverse the “no cause” determination based on the following:

1. Procedural Violations

• Unsigned Position Statement: The EEOC relied on a response from the Respondent that did not meet the signature requirements under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a). This violates statutory procedure and renders any resulting determination void ab initio.

• Failure to Address Procedural Motions: Multiple motions were submitted, including recusal and due process objections. None were acknowledged or resolved on the record.

• Ultra Vires Actions Post-Recusal Request: Actions taken by Investigator Perez following my formal request for his recusal are invalid under EEOC MD-110, Ch. 2, § II-7 and 5 U.S.C. § 555(e).

2. Substantive Legal Deficiencies

• My evidence of retaliation and failure to accommodate was materially ignored or mischaracterized.

• The record clearly shows Cox Communications failed to engage in the interactive process, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A).

• The claim that accommodations were “extensive” is factually contradicted by time-stamped requests, HR case logs, and medical provider letters—all previously submitted.

3. New and Previously Unconsidered Evidence

I will submit additional documentation within the next 5 business days. This includes:

• Audit trail of all HR case logs and unanswered requests.

• MetLife denial pattern timeline (STD eligibility vs. Cox’s actions).

• Direct contradictions between Cox’s position and third-party records.

Please confirm that the record will remain open and that no determination will be issued before my supplemental materials are filed.

---

II. New Inquiry: 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.

---

III. 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.

---

IV. Summary of Requested Relief

FORMAL REBUTTAL AND DEMAND FOR SWORN TESTIMONY AND DATA PRESERVATION

This filing is submitted to memorialize and document a critical mass of evidence, activism, and self-advocacy in the face of ongoing retaliation and discrimination by Cox Communications, Inc. It directly and specifically refutes the assertions and omissions in Cox’s position statement, demonstrates procedural and substantive violations, and demands corrective action and cross-agency review.

Importantly, there is a wealth of additional facts and prima facie violations that were not even mentioned in Cox’s position statement. These include documented payroll irregularities, ADA/FMLA violations, HIPAA breaches, and a pattern of retaliation and record falsification. These facts will be made known in forthcoming addenda, and each will be supported by direct evidence and sworn testimony.

As for the position statement itself, the following are the ten most legally damaging violations and structural weaknesses. For each, we will systematically drill down into four specific areas: (1) the individuals/principals involved, (2) the relevant records and systems, (3) the data to be extracted and preserved, and (4) the demand for sworn testimony or affidavit under penalty of perjury.

I. SYSTEMATIC FORENSIC DRILLDOWN ON TOP 10 VIOLATIONS

II. SPECIFIC CONTRADICTIONS AND OMISSIONS BY COX COMMUNICATIONS

V. Legal Name of the Violation

• Constructive Interference with 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.

V. 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.

VI. RELIEF REQUESTED

• Immediate disqualification and removal of Investigator Alexander Perez from all further participation in this matter
• Assignment of a new investigator from outside the Norfolk Office to preserve neutrality and the integrity of the record
• Written justification from the District Director for all material decisions made by Mr. Perez to date
• Formal logging and docketing of all motions, evidence, and communications submitted since April 2, 2025
• Reopening and reinstatement of EEOC Inquiry No. 437-2025-01209 (Closed Improperly) as a separate and active matter, or full review of EEOC Inquiry No. 437-2025-01209 as part of the current case.
• Mandatory sworn affidavits from all Cox Communications personnel involved in the investigation and position statement, with production of all underlying records.
• That this motion and all supporting documentation be immediately transmitted to DOJ, DOL, the Virginia Office of the State Inspector General, and the Office of the Governor of Virginia for oversight and review.

V. SERVICE CERTIFICATION

I certify that this motion and all supporting exhibits have been served via the EEOC Portal and electronic mail to:

• Alexander Perez, Investigator, U.S. EEOC - Norfolk Area Office
• District Director, EEOC Norfolk
• Justin Miles, Cox Communications External Legal Counsel
• All individuals listed for testimony above