Agency Alert: VEC Decision in Favor of Thomas D. Coates

Request for Oversight, Enforcement, and Inter-Agency Coordination

Date: [Insert Date]

To: [Agency Contact Name/Email]

From: Thomas D. Coates

Summary

I am writing to formally notify your office of a major, favorable ruling by the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) in my dispute with Cox Communications, Inc. The VEC, after full review of evidence and testimony, found that my separation was for medical reasons—not, as Cox claimed, a voluntary resignation or misconduct.

“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)

Key Contradictions and Violations

Cox Assertion	Contradictory Evidence	Statute Violated
“Your failure to return to work constitutes a voluntary resignation under Cox’s Unpaid Leave of Absence policy.” (Keith Wilson, Jan 3, 2025)	VEC found separation was for medical reasons, not voluntary resignation. Physician’s letter (Oct 2, 2024) authorized return with accommodations. MetLife accepted medical documentation and approved return-to-work.	ADA Title I, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a)
“You did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation.”	Medical documentation was provided and acknowledged by HR. Plaintiff followed up repeatedly to confirm receipt and compliance.	42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)
Cox claims compliance with ADA interactive process.	No documented interactive process; repeated outreach by Plaintiff ignored. HR mischaracterized physician’s note and failed to discuss accommodations.	42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)
No retaliation occurred.	Adverse actions (denial of access, delayed pay, termination) followed protected ADA activity. Temporal proximity and pattern of retaliation established.	42 U.S.C. § 12203(a)
Plaintiff failed to follow procedures.	VEC rejected Cox’s procedural arguments. Cox imposed unnecessary hurdles and restarted accommodation process.	29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(b)
No systemic issues.	Internal complaints and ethics reports ignored. Public claims of accessibility and inclusion contradicted by actions.	42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(B)

Summary of Factual Allegations

Medically documented disability and return-to-work clearance ignored by Cox.
Repeated delays, contradictory HR responses, and denied access to internal systems.
No documented interactive process or good faith accommodation efforts.
Payroll and benefit delays, including withheld commissions and delayed STD payments.
Retaliatory actions following ADA-protected activity, including constructive termination.
Internal complaints and ethics reports were never substantively addressed.

Request for Agency Support

The VEC’s ruling is not only a personal vindication but also a critical piece of evidence demonstrating Cox’s misrepresentations to state and federal agencies, including the EEOC. It highlights the need for further investigation into:

Cox’s failure to accommodate and engage in the interactive process.
Retaliation for protected activity under the ADA (42 U.S.C. § 12203).
Potential violations of payroll, HIPAA, and confidentiality statutes.
Procedural failures and misrepresentations that have contaminated related proceedings.

I respectfully request your agency’s support in reviewing the attached VEC decision and related evidence, coordinating with other agencies as appropriate, and providing oversight or intervention to ensure compliance with state and federal law.

Attachments:

VEC Decision (May 8, 2025)
Cox Communications January 3, 2025 Separation Letter
Physician’s Return-to-Work Documentation
MetLife Correspondence
Relevant Correspondence and Evidence