MEMORANDUM OF UNRESOLVED FACTUAL
AND
PROCEDURAL ISSUES
FORMAL MOTION TO PRESERVE THE RECORD AND PENDING MOTION
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.
The following table memorializes specific statements from Investigator Perez’s May 19, 2025 email, with corresponding legal/procedural violations and explanations:
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
That no determination be issued until each pending motion is formally ruled upon with written justification.
That each unresolved factual dispute be addressed with specific findings and evidentiary citations.
That the procedural irregularities be reviewed by a supervisory official at the EEOC.
That this memorandum be entered into the permanent record and transmitted to all oversight agencies.
That an evidentiary hearing or fact-finding conference be scheduled to resolve the material factual disputes.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.