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:
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:
The Complainant respectfully requests that the EEOC and cross-agency recipients:
I certify that this motion and all supporting exhibits have been served via EEOC Portal and electronic mail to:
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.
This addendum expressly incorporates not only the Cox April 2025 position statement but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox’s principals, executives, and HR personnel in any form, including:
The record shows that multiple Cox executives and compliance officers, including Ms. Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), were copied on critical correspondence and were fully aware of the ongoing retaliation and ADA/EEO violations as early as July 2024. These leaders had both a statutory and fiduciary duty to intervene, investigate, and remediate upon receiving evidence of discrimination or a formal EEO/ADA request for help. Their inaction directly enabled the ongoing harm, and their silence constitutes a breach of duty under federal and state law.
The failure of Cox’s highest compliance officer to act on clear evidence of retaliation and ADA violations is itself a violation of law and policy, and raises serious questions about systemic compliance failures at Cox. This pattern is not isolated. If the Chief Compliance Officer and other executives can “turn a blind eye” to such clear-cut evidence, it signals a broader culture of noncompliance and exposes the company to enhanced scrutiny and cross-agency enforcement. This addendum is intended to serve as a model for escalation in all similar Cox cases, and to notify oversight agencies that these failures are not happening in a vacuum.
Each addendum submitted herein is intended to have independent legal force and effect, and should be considered, adjudicated, and preserved in the record regardless of the disposition of the main motion. The facts, legal arguments, and relief requested in this addendum are severable and should be ruled upon independently as necessary to ensure a full and fair adjudication of all issues presented.
The EEOC and all oversight agencies are specifically notified that the scope of this motion and all addenda includes the full web of communications, not just the position statement. Any attempt to “fix” or disclaim a single link in the chain will not defeat the evidentiary record, as the intertwined communications and executive knowledge establish ongoing, systemic violations and fiduciary breaches.
Introduction:
This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.
EEOC Standards and Guidance
EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements:
“A position statement should be clear, concise, complete, and responsive to the allegations. It should provide specific, factual information, including documentation where possible, and avoid unsupported generalizations or conclusory statements.”
Source: EEOC Respondent Position Statement Guidelines
EEOC Enforcement Guidance (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15):
“Each party shall have the right to submit statements and evidence. The Commission shall accord substantial weight to documentary evidence and sworn statements, and shall disregard unsupported allegations.”
EEOC Federal Sector Management Directive 110 (MD-110):
“All factual assertions should be supported by documentary evidence or sworn testimony. Investigators and fact-finders must disregard statements that are not supported by evidence.”
Other Federal Agency Standards
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL):
“All findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Unsupported assertions or conclusions are insufficient.”
See: 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (Administrative Procedure Act)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA Investigations:
“Each claim must be supported by evidence, including affidavits, records, or other documentation. Unsupported statements are not credited.”
See: DOJ ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, Sec. II-3.6100
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (Summary Judgment):
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by…citing to particular parts of materials in the record…or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.”
See: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
Professional Standards and Best Practices
National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) – Code of Conduct:
“Members must ensure that all factual representations and legal arguments are supported by evidence and are not misleading, speculative, or conclusory.”
See: NADR Code of Conduct
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.3:
“A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
Referral for Standards Review
In light of these requirements, I request that this addendum and the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) or a similar professional standards body for review. The purpose is to ensure that all statements made in the position paper meet the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and professional codes.
Date: [Insert Date]
To: [EEOC Investigator, HR, or relevant recipient]
From: Thomas Coates
Subject: Addendum – Memorialization and Challenge of Unsupported Statements
Purpose
This addendum memorializes and formally challenges 48 specific statements made in Cox’s April 2025 Position Statement that lack direct documentary support, legal anchoring, or are unsupported rationalizations. Each statement is referenced by page number. For each, I demand supporting documentation and/or a sworn affidavit. Where such substantiation cannot be produced, I respectfully request the statement be stricken from the record and that an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for making unsupported factual claims.
| # | Assertion (summary) | Page | Challenge & Demand |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Claims are speculative and irrelevant overall | 1 | Demand: Produce supporting documentation or affidavit. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
| 2 | Cox provided “extensive” accommodations to Coates | 2 | Demand: Identify and produce all records or communications evidencing “extensive” accommodations. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
| 3 | Only denied accommodations outside company control | 2 | Demand: Produce documentation showing which accommodations were denied and why they were outside company control. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
| 4 | Refusal to return equaled voluntary resignation | 2 | Demand: Produce resignation letter or contemporaneous record of voluntary resignation. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
| 48 | Anti-retaliation policy compliance claimed without audits | 3 | Demand: Provide documentation of anti-retaliation policy audits or compliance reviews. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
Legal Basis
The EEOC and courts require factual assertions in position statements to be supported by evidence (affidavits, business records, or documentation). Unsupported or speculative statements are improper and should not be considered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and EEOC guidance on position statements.
Requested Relief
That each identified unsupported statement be stricken from the record unless Cox can provide admissible evidence or a sworn affidavit substantiating the claim.
That the record reflect these statements as unsubstantiated and improper.
That an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for any statement made without a good faith evidentiary basis.
That this addendum be attached to and considered part of the official record in this matter.
Conclusion
I reserve the right to supplement this addendum as further unsupported statements are identified. I respectfully request prompt action on this matter to preserve the integrity of the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Coates
[Date]