Complainant Thomas D. Coates, by and through undersigned authority, hereby submits this Motion No. 1 for Memorialization and Request for Admission of Material Statement, and respectfully requests its entry into the administrative record of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in connection with Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.

This motion is further submitted for immediate transmittal and coordinated review by the U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Justice, Virginia Office of the State Inspector General, and the Office of the Governor of Virginia, as well as any other oversight body with statutory interest in the matters described herein.

This motion concerns not only material statements submitted by Respondent’s counsel in Cox’s April 2025 position statement to the EEOC, but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox’s principals, agents, and HR personnel in any form—including but not limited to:

• Position statements and supplemental filings submitted to the EEOC or other agencies;
• Emails and written correspondence by supervisors, HR, or management;
• Teams, Slack, or other internal chat communications relevant to leave, accommodation, or discipline;
• Workday, payroll, or HR system input and audit logs;
• Internal notes, digital logs, and records of meetings or corrective actions;
• Any other documented or system-captured assertion or representation made by Cox or its agents regarding Complainant’s employment, leave, discipline, or accommodation.

These statements are contradicted by direct documentary evidence and constitute perjury, retaliation, and ongoing bad faith. The Complainant specifically objects to any attempt by Respondent to “fix” or disclaim only the position statement while leaving other false or misleading assertions uncorrected in the broader record. The evidentiary chain is intentionally intertwined: any attempt to remove or alter one “link” (e.g., the position statement) will not defeat the integrity of the overall record, as other communications and system records independently corroborate the violations and inconsistencies at issue.

This motion is submitted pursuant to:

• 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA enforcement via Title VII procedures)
• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) and (f)(1) (EEOC investigative authority and enforcement)
• 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) and § 1601.18 (submission and use of party statements as evidence)
• Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) (statements of an opposing party as non-hearsay)
• EEOC-DOL-DOJ MOU (2018, revised 2022) for collaborative investigation and systemic referral

The Commission is empowered to preserve and memorialize such statements as binding admissions, subject to cross-agency evidentiary review.

The Complainant respectfully requests that the EEOC and cross-agency recipients:

• Enter this motion and the cited material statement into the permanent record for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001;
• Formally memorialize the quoted material statement as a material representation in the record, subject to Rule 801(d)(2) admissions;
• Order Cox Communications to admit, clarify, or deny this material statement within 10 business days, or else treat it as an evidentiary admission for all investigative and judicial purposes;
• Refer any systemic findings arising from this statement to DOJ Civil Rights Division and DOL WHD;
• Distribute a certified copy of this motion and the quoted material statement to all relevant oversight agencies for synchronized review.

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

• Alexander Perez, Investigator, U.S. EEOC – Norfolk Area Office
• Attorney Justin Miles, Littler Mendelson, P.C. (for Cox Communications)
• Other designated agency officials as required by protocol

Complainant expressly preserves all rights regarding the timing and completeness of this filing. Any delay or supplementation (“Part 2” or otherwise) is due solely to agency and inspector non-response or delay, not to any lack of diligence by Complainant. No party should be permitted to object to, exclude, or disregard any portion of this record based on timing, pagination, or the sequence of submissions, especially where such sequencing was necessitated by factors outside Complainant’s control. Complainant requests that the record reflect that all filings are timely, complete, and should be considered in their entirety.

The integrity of this administrative proceeding depends on the accuracy and preservation of the record. The quoted material statement by Cox Communications, as submitted by counsel, must be memorialized as a formal evidentiary admission, subject to cross-agency review and enforcement.

[Insert your legal standards section here, as previously drafted.]

Respondent may attempt to avoid responsibility or limit liability by advancing a series of anticipated defenses or excuses, including but not limited to:

1. Lack of Knowledge or Notice: Asserting that management or HR was unaware of protected activity, disability status, or need for accommodation prior to adverse action.
2. Justification by Performance: Claiming that all adverse actions were justified solely by performance or unrelated policy violations, not by retaliation or discrimination.
3. Procedural Compliance: Alleging strict adherence to internal policies and procedures, regardless of their actual application or fairness.
4. Denial of Documentation: Stating that no medical or supporting documentation was ever received, or that requests were incomplete or untimely.
5. Provision of Reasonable Accommodation: Asserting that all reasonable accommodations were provided as required, or that any denied requests were outside company control.
6. Prompt Correction of Errors: Claiming that any errors or omissions were inadvertent and promptly corrected once discovered.
7. Reliance on Internal Investigations: Citing internal investigations or audits as evidence of compliance, even where those investigations were incomplete, biased, or non-transparent.
8. After-the-Fact “Fixes” or Disclaimers: Attempting to “fix” the record or disclaim earlier statements after the fact, rather than acknowledging and correcting the underlying violation.
9. Procedural or Technical Objections: Arguing that any supplemental filings, addenda, or “Part 2” submissions are untimely or procedurally improper, particularly where agency or inspector delays contributed to the timing.

Complainant respectfully requests that the Commission and all reviewing agencies recognize these anticipated defenses as insufficient to defeat the factual and legal record established herein, and that no procedural or technical objection be permitted to prejudice the full and fair adjudication of this matter.

TABLE 1: MATERIAL FALSE OR UNSUPPORTED STATEMENTS REQUIRING SWORN AFFIDAVIT OR DOCUMENTARY PROOF

#	Statement / Assertion	Responsible Parties	Contradicted By	Legal Basis	Demand
1	“Cox provided Mr. Coates with extensive accommodations.”	Azariah Workman, HR, Supervisor, Compliance Team	Direct systems evidence (Workday/HR logs); Third-party corroboration; Internal communications	42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A)	Produce all records of “extensive” accommodations or sworn affidavit. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied.

[Insert your Executive Knowledge addendum here.]

[Insert your Timeline addendum here.]