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: [Insert if applicable]
FORMAL MULTI-AGENCY FILING AND CROSS-AGENCY RECORD PRESERVATION
SUBMISSION OF MOTION NO. 1 AND ADDENDUM (TWO DOCUMENTS ANNOUNCED)
TO: U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (via Portal and direct email)
CC:
RE: Cross-Agency Submission and Record Preservation - Motion No. 1 and Addendum (Two Documents)
Legal Basis for Multi-Agency Filing and Service:
This filing and all accompanying documents are submitted pursuant to:
Announcement of Documents Submitted:
  1. Motion No. 1: Memorialization, Retaliation Timeline, and Paradigm-Shifting Addenda - This document formally requests memorialization of material statements and preservation of the record, with cross-agency distribution and relief requested.
  2. Addendum: Executive Knowledge, Fiduciary Breach, and the Intertwined Chain of Evidence - This addendum incorporates all related communications, documents executive awareness and inaction, and requests independent standing and cross-agency review.
Both documents are submitted together and announced for the record. All agencies are requested to acknowledge receipt and to preserve the record for further supplements or filings.
Purpose of Cross-Agency Filing:
Notice: This header and all accompanying documents are 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.


MEMORANDUM OF UNRESOLVED FACTUAL 

AND 

PROCEDURAL ISSUES

FORMAL MOTION TO PRESERVE THE RECORD AND PENDING MOTION


MEMORANDUM OF UNRESOLVED FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL ISSUES

I. INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE

Complainant Thomas D. Coates hereby submits this Memorandum of Unresolved Issues to formally document all pending motions, factual disputes, and procedural matters that must be addressed before any determination is issued in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001. This memorandum is necessitated by Investigator Alexander Perez's May 19 and May 27, 2025 emails, which indicate a risk of summary determination without resolution of material factual disputes, pending motions, or cross-agency review.

This memorandum is submitted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c), and Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), and is intended to preserve the record for administrative and judicial review.

II. IMPROPER CONDUCT, VIOLATIONS, OR OMISSIONS IN THE MAY 19, 2025 EMAIL

The following table memorializes specific statements from Investigator Perez’s May 19, 2025 email, with corresponding legal/procedural violations and explanations:

#

Quoted Statement from Email

Legal/Procedural Violation

Explanation

1

“You have instead elected to send multiple documents and requests that fall outside of the procedures that govern EEOC’s statutory obligations at this stage...”

29 CFR §1601.15(b) – Investigators must accept all relevant evidence.

Charging parties may submit additional evidence at any time prior to a final decision. There is no rule prohibiting document submissions during investigation.

2

“Your claims do not constitute violations of federal anti-discrimination laws...”

Premature Adjudication Violation

An EEOC investigator cannot issue legal conclusions before completing full evidence review and rebuttal period.

3

“...Cox Communications provided extensive reasonable accommodations...”

Fact-based Dispute Requires Investigation, not Assumption

This assumes truth of Cox’s claims despite submitted contradictory evidence. Fact-finding obligation is active at this stage.

4

“Your employment was terminated solely due to your failure to return to work...”

Ignoring ADA Interactive Process Failures

Overlooks whether Cox followed proper ADA processes or prematurely ended employment without accommodation resolution.

5

“Harassment and retaliation lack evidence.”

Contradicted by Submitted Documentation

User provided evidence of retaliation (e.g., pay cuts post-accommodation request), which was not acknowledged.

6

“Routine performance discussions... occurred prior to your disclosure of any disability...”

Temporal Inaccuracy

Cox was notified as early as May 28, 2024. Disciplinary actions occurred after notice, contradicting this.

7

“Claims unrelated to Title VII or the ADA... fall outside EEOC’s jurisdiction.”

Partial Misstatement – EEOC coordinates with DOL on FMLA overlap

EEOC has joint enforcement authority and must refer or coordinate when cases implicate ADA/FMLA overlap.

8

“Unlikely that additional investigation will result in a cause finding.”

29 CFR §1601.18(b) – Dismissals must be based on complete record.

Prejudges outcome before allowing rebuttal period to end, violating neutral fact-finding.

9

“Submit it to me within 10 days...”

Inflexible and Contrary to Policy

Deadlines can be imposed, but EEOC must consider extenuating circumstances and provide options for extension per procedural fairness.

10

“We may dismiss this case...”

Threatens Dismissal Before Reviewing Full Evidence

EEOC is obligated to review all rebuttals and evidence before dismissing.

11

“...claims further by filing a private lawsuit...”

Avoids Duty to Encourage Reconciliation

EEOC is expected to offer mediation or conciliation before issuing a dismissal where possible.

12

Absence of any reference to ADA regulations or Section 503 duties

Omission of Required Procedural Notice

EEOC must acknowledge ADA-specific processes under Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act and notify about alternative dispute resolution options.

Summary Notes:

Many of the statements mischaracterize the procedural rights of charging parties under EEOC rules.

The tone and structure of the letter violate neutrality obligations required of federal investigators.

Several factual inaccuracies and contradictions with the already submitted evidence should have triggered a formal rebuttal review, not dismissal language.

Statements imply final adjudication authority, which is reserved for the Commission or post-cause finding stages, not individual investigators.

EXHIBIT A: Procedural Violations in EEOC Correspondence – May 19, 2025 Email from Investigator Alexander Perez

Case: Coates v. Cox Communications – EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001
Subject: Improper Procedures, Omitted Statutory Protections, and Violations of Investigative Neutrality in Email Communication

III. PENDING MOTIONS REQUIRING RESOLUTION

Motion

Date Filed

Status

Legal Authority

Formal Motion No. 1: Memorialization, Retaliation Timeline, and Paradigm-Shifting Addenda

May 18, 2025

Pending - No ruling

29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c); FRE 801(d)(2)

Motion for Removal of Investigator Alexander Perez

May 20, 2025

Pending - No ruling

EEOC MD-110, § II-7; 5 U.S.C. § 556(b)

Demand for Legal Justification

May 20, 2025

Pending - No ruling

5 U.S.C. § 555(e); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.19

CoxTrack Addendum: Challenge to Unsupported Assertions

May 22, 2025

Pending - No ruling

Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15

Motion to Preserve the Record and Pending Motions

May 27, 2025

Pending - No ruling

42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b); 5 U.S.C. § 556(d)

IV. UNRESOLVED FACTUAL DISPUTES

Factual Dispute

Cox's Assertion

Contradictory Evidence

Status

Nature of Termination

"Voluntary resignation" (Position Statement, p.2)

No resignation letter exists; Workday logs show involuntary termination

Unresolved

Timing of Retaliatory Write-Up

"Pre-dated protected activity" (Position Statement, p.2)

Workday logs show write-up created one day after leave request

Unresolved

Accommodation Provision

"Extensive accommodations provided" (Position Statement, p.2)

Email records show multiple denials and delays

Unresolved

HR Policy Compliance

"All HR processes followed" (Position Statement, p.3)

Policy HR-405 violated; 22-day response delay

Unresolved

Executive Knowledge

No acknowledgment of executive awareness

Chief Compliance Officer copied on critical correspondence

Unresolved

V. PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES

  1. Prejudgment of Case: Investigator Perez's May 19, 2025 email states "your claims do not constitute violations of federal anti-discrimination laws" before receiving Complainant's rebuttal, indicating prejudgment.

  2. Dismissal of Procedural Rights: Investigator Perez's statement that Complainant has "elected to send multiple documents and requests that fall outside of the procedures" mischaracterizes legitimate procedural motions and requests.

  3. Premature Closure Attempt: Investigator Perez's March 24, 2025 email encouraging a Right to Sue letter "rather than put the parties through a long investigation" suggests a desire to close the case without thorough investigation.

  4. Failure to Rule on Motions: No formal ruling has been issued on any of the five pending motions, despite their material impact on the investigation.

  5. Arbitrary Deadline: The May 27, 2025 email imposing same-day deadline for "part 2" of rebuttal without addressing pending motions creates undue pressure and procedural unfairness.


EXHIBIT B: Procedural Violations in EEOC Correspondence – May 27, 2025 Email from Investigator Alexander Perez

Case: Coates v. Cox Communications – EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001
Subject: Improper Procedures, Omitted Statutory Protections, and Violations of Investigative Neutrality in Email Communication


II. TABLE OF VIOLATIONS IN MAY 27, 2025 EMAIL

#

Quoted Statement / Omission

Violation / Issue

Legal Citation or Standard Breached

Notes / Status

1

“Previously, you agreed to submit your rebuttal by no later than May 22, 2025.”

Misrepresentation of agreement as binding deadline

EEOC MD-110 Ch. 5; Due Process

EEOC should not enforce arbitrary deadlines absent formal process or reasonable extension opportunity.

2

“We will give you until close of business today…”

Excessively short notice undermining fair rebuttal opportunity

EEOC Best Practices; MD-110; 29 CFR §1601.18(b)

Same-day deadline limits claimant’s ability to respond, especially when disabled.

3

“Failure to submit…will result in a determination…”

Prejudgment and undue pressure on disabled claimant

Due Process; 29 CFR §1630 (ADA); Rehabilitation Act

Implies case may be closed absent fair consideration of ADA-related delays.

4

(No mention of ADA process or interactive requirements)

Failure to follow ADA-specific procedures

29 CFR §1630; EEOC ADA Enforcement Guidance

EEOC must recognize and allow for process delays in accommodation or medical leave claims.

5

(No mention of employer recordkeeping obligations)

One-sided burden assignment; failure to hold employer accountable

29 CFR §1602.14

EEOC failed to request sworn statements or evidence from Cox Communications.

6

“I have reviewed part 1 of your rebuttal.”

No summary or confirmation of specific points received

EEOC MD-110 Ch. 6

No acknowledgment of substance or importance of part 1 submission.

7

“As a courtesy…”

Inappropriate tone suggesting discretionary favor

Federal Communications Policy; EEOC Neutrality Guidelines

Charging party rights are not dependent on courtesy but on law.

8

(No reference to disability-based access or extensions)

Failure to grant reasonable accommodation during process

Rehabilitation Act; ADA Title I

Disregards Complainant’s right to accessible, extended response timeline.

9

(Omission of submitted retaliation/wage claims)

Dismissal of related evidence

EEOC Case Consolidation Guidance; Cross-Agency Referral

Wage retaliation, FMLA, and ethics-based evidence was not acknowledged.

10

“Working hard for something we love…” – Simon Sinek

Inappropriate personalization in federal business email

DOJ and EEOC email conduct policy

Personal quotes may be construed as unprofessional or non-neutral.



III. CONCLUSION

This exhibit reflects improper procedural conduct and omission of required disability and retaliation protections in the handling of a federal ADA charge by EEOC Investigator Alexander Perez. These actions:

  • Compromise the neutrality and thoroughness of the investigation,

  • Disregard ADA-specific statutory obligations, and

  • Violate due process principles expected in EEOC proceedings.

Accordingly, the Complainant requests that:

  • A full supervisory review be initiated under EEOC Management Directive MD-110,

  • Investigator Perez be required to provide a sworn affidavit explaining investigatory conduct,

  • And a neutral reassignment of the charge or formal acknowledgment of ADA-specific procedural missteps be issued.



VI. CROSS-AGENCY IMPLICATIONS

These unresolved issues have significant cross-agency implications under the EEOC-DOJ-DOL Memorandum of Understanding (2018, revised 2022). Specifically:

  • The pattern of retaliation documented in the timeline addendum implicates both EEOC and DOL jurisdiction.

  • The systemic compliance failures documented in the Executive Knowledge addendum warrant DOJ pattern-or-practice review.

  • The procedural irregularities in the investigation process may constitute a violation of administrative due process under 5 U.S.C. § 555 and § 556.

VII. RELIEF REQUESTED

  1. That no determination be issued until each pending motion is formally ruled upon with written justification.

  2. That each unresolved factual dispute be addressed with specific findings and evidentiary citations.

  3. That the procedural irregularities be reviewed by a supervisory official at the EEOC.

  4. That this memorandum be entered into the permanent record and transmitted to all oversight agencies.

  5. That an evidentiary hearing or fact-finding conference be scheduled to resolve the material factual disputes.

VIII. CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I certify that this memorandum has been served via the EEOC Portal and electronic mail to:

  • Alexander Perez, Investigator, U.S. EEOC – Norfolk Area Office

  • Mindy E. Weinstein, Director, EEOC Washington Field Office

  • Attorney Justin Miles, Littler Mendelson, P.C. (for Cox Communications)

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

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

  • Virginia Office of the State Inspector General

  • Office of the Governor of Virginia

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539

Dated: May 27, 2025

Notice: This memorandum 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.







FORMAL MOTION TO PRESERVE THE RECORD AND PENDING MOTIONS

Filed with: EEOC Norfolk Area Office (via Portal and Email)

CC: DOJ Civil Rights Division, DOL Wage & Hour Division, Virginia Office of the State Inspector General, Office of the Governor of Virginia, and other oversight bodies.

I. INTRODUCTION AND REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY RELIEF

Complainant Thomas D. Coates respectfully moves for an immediate order preserving all filings, evidence, and pending motions in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001. This motion is necessitated by the ongoing actions of Investigator Alexander Perez, which threaten the integrity of the record and the foundation of this case. Despite multiple formal motions to the District Director and Chief of the EEOC, no acknowledgment or response has been received from EEOC leadership. Meanwhile, Mr. Perez continues to exercise unilateral discretion, prejudging the case and attempting to summarily close the record without addressing material disputes or pending motions.

II. PRIMARY GROUNDS FOR THIS MOTION

  1. Ongoing Injury to the Record by Investigator Perez:

    • Mr. Perez’s recent communications (see May 19 and May 27, 2025 emails) demonstrate a pattern of prejudgment, refusal to rule on pending motions, and efforts to dismiss or ignore critical evidence and legal arguments. This conduct is actively injuring the record and undermining the foundation for administrative and judicial review.

    • Example: “You have instead elected to send multiple documents and requests that fall outside of the procedures that govern EEOC’s statutory obligations at this stage...” (Perez, May 19, 2025). This statement mischaracterizes the right to submit evidence and motions under 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b) and EEOC guidance.

  2. Unacknowledged Motions to EEOC Leadership:

    • Formal motions for supervisory review, investigator removal, and legal justification have been submitted to the District Director and Chief of the EEOC. No acknowledgment or ruling has been received, in violation of EEOC’s duty to investigate and respond under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and 29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(b).

    • This silence allows Mr. Perez’s improper actions to persist unchecked, further prejudicing the complainant and eroding confidence in the administrative process.

  3. Risk of Irreversible Procedural Harm:

    • Mr. Perez’s threatened summary dismissal, arbitrary deadlines, and refusal to consider pending motions risk causing irreversible procedural harm—including loss of evidence, waiver of statutory rights, and denial of due process.

    • “If we do not hear from you by May 29, 2025, we may dismiss this case based on the available evidence...” (Perez, May 19, 2025). This threatens dismissal before the record is complete and all motions are resolved, contrary to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(b).

  4. Systemic and Cross-Agency Implications:

    • The pattern of nonresponse and procedural breakdown at the Norfolk EEOC office now implicates the interests of DOJ, DOL, and state oversight agencies, as documented in prior addenda and cross-agency filings.

    • Preservation of the full record is essential for coordinated enforcement and future judicial review.

III. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL BASIS

  • 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) – EEOC duty to investigate and consider all evidence

  • 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c), § 1601.18(b) – Submission and use of party statements as evidence; duty to resolve charges on the complete record

  • Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) – Admissions of a party-opponent

  • EEOC-DOL-DOJ MOU (2018, rev. 2022) – Collaborative investigation and systemic referral

  • 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) – Administrative Procedure Act: findings must be supported by substantial evidence

IV. RELIEF REQUESTED

  1. That the EEOC and all cross-agency recipients issue an order preserving all filings, evidence, and pending motions in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.

  2. That no determination or dismissal be issued until each motion and evidentiary submission has been formally ruled upon and entered into the permanent record, with written justification for any denial.

  3. That written acknowledgment be provided for all pending motions submitted to the District Director and Chief of the EEOC, and that Mr. Perez’s continued involvement be reviewed for impartiality and compliance with federal standards.

  4. 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

  • Chief, U.S. EEOC (Washington DC)

  • Attorney Justin Miles, Littler Mendelson, P.C. (for Cox Communications)

  • Other designated agency officials as required by protocol

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates

tdcoates@gmail.com  |  (757) 374-3539

Dated: May 27, 2025

Notice: This motion 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.