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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.