Narrative of Retaliation and Constructive Interference

Narrative of Retaliation and Constructive Interference: The Azariah Workman Incident – June 28, 2024

Memorialization and Legal Notice:

This incident and analysis are hereby entered into the permanent record for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 and all cross-agency referrals.
All parties, including Cox Communications, its agents, and oversight agencies, are notified of their duty to preserve all related payroll, system, and correspondence records for independent review and audit.
Any attempt to “fix,” disclaim, or distance from these actions will not defeat the integrity of the memorialized record, as the evidentiary chain is independently corroborated by system logs, emails, and contemporaneous documentation.

I. Factual Summary

On June 28, 2024, Thomas D. Coates requested a private meeting with his manager, Azariah Workman, to discuss urgent medical concerns related to worsening cardiac symptoms and heightened stress stemming from his son’s illness. This request was made with the expectation of confidentiality, consistent with ADA guidelines that protect medical disclosures.

Despite the one-on-one nature of the request, Ms. Workman summoned multiple individuals, including two of Coates’s direct supervisors and a third manager who was not assigned to him nor previously involved in his supervision. This third party had no official role in the matter and no permissible reason under EEOC confidentiality standards to be privy to sensitive medical discussions.

During the meeting, Coates disclosed that he was experiencing chest pains and acute stress. Upon hearing this, Ms. Workman acknowledged the seriousness of the symptoms and verbally stated that she was granting him two paid medical days off to seek care. She told him:
"I’m going to give you two days of paid medical leave so that you can go to the doctor and get yourself taken care of."

However, within hours of that interaction, Ms. Workman accessed the Workday system and halted Coates’s pay, a decision also reflected in PeopleSoft and Workday audit logs. No additional medical information had been submitted to justify this change, and no new events occurred that would explain this shift. Importantly, Coates was not notified in advance nor given an opportunity to respond.

Furthermore, within 72 hours, Ms. Workman initiated a negative performance evaluation, directly following his disclosure and request for medical accommodation—an evaluation that appears backdated in the system and was created after she was informed of his protected medical condition.

He was not paid again for nearly 30 days, despite repeated efforts to resolve the issue with HR, supervisors, and internal support systems.

II. Human Impact and Legal Protections Violated

What Should Have Happened	What Actually Happened
Under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(C) (ADA confidentiality), only individuals involved in HR or with direct medical accommodation responsibilities should have been present during any discussion of medical conditions. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c), medical information must be kept confidential and separate from personnel files, and not shared without direct necessity. Under 29 C.F.R. § 825.302 & § 825.303 (FMLA), when an employee discloses a serious health condition, the employer must facilitate—not obstruct—medical leave requests. Under 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, adverse action following the initiation of an accommodation or leave request triggers a presumption of retaliation, which must be rebutted with objective evidence.	A confidential medical disclosure was made in a compromised environment. A verbal accommodation (2 days of paid medical leave) was given but reversed within hours via a payroll intervention. Pay was cut off immediately following the disclosure of a disability-related health crisis. A negative evaluation was initiated while the employee was under medical distress and after invoking ADA and FMLA protections.

What Should Have Happened

What Actually Happened

Under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(C) (ADA confidentiality), only individuals involved in HR or with direct medical accommodation responsibilities should have been present during any discussion of medical conditions.
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c), medical information must be kept confidential and separate from personnel files, and not shared without direct necessity.
Under 29 C.F.R. § 825.302 & § 825.303 (FMLA), when an employee discloses a serious health condition, the employer must facilitate—not obstruct—medical leave requests.
Under 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14, adverse action following the initiation of an accommodation or leave request triggers a presumption of retaliation, which must be rebutted with objective evidence.

A confidential medical disclosure was made in a compromised environment.
A verbal accommodation (2 days of paid medical leave) was given but reversed within hours via a payroll intervention.
Pay was cut off immediately following the disclosure of a disability-related health crisis.
A negative evaluation was initiated while the employee was under medical distress and after invoking ADA and FMLA protections.

III. Statutory Violations Identified

1. Retaliation under ADA Title I: 42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) prohibits retaliation against an individual for requesting reasonable accommodations or reporting discrimination.
2. Constructive Interference with Medical Leave (FMLA): 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2) prohibits employers from interfering with or retaliating against the use of FMLA-protected leave. Chest pain and physician care are triggers under serious health condition definitions.
3. Violation of EEOC Confidentiality Standards: 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c)(1)(i) prohibits the disclosure of confidential medical information to unauthorized personnel.
4. Failure to Engage in Good-Faith Interactive Process: EEOC Guidance mandates employers to actively assist in accommodation after disclosure. Instead, the employer took punitive action.
5. Constructive Discharge and Payroll Withholding: Cutting pay following a protected medical disclosure, without notice or process, constitutes constructive interference under 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 and can rise to constructive discharge if continued.
6. Bad Faith Retaliatory Documentation: The creation of an unprompted negative evaluation, temporally adjacent to a medical disclosure, demonstrates retaliatory animus and violates 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a).

IV. Pretextual Conduct and Contradictions in the Record

Cox Position Statement Claim	Contradicted By
The position statement asserts that Cox “worked cooperatively with Mr. Coates to facilitate his return.”	June 28 incident where a medical disclosure was immediately met with loss of pay and negative evaluation.
Cox claims “Mr. Coates never presented documentation supporting his claims.”	Real-time, verbal disclosure of medical crisis followed by payroll action before any documentation could be submitted.
Cox claims “retaliation claims are unsupported.”	The temporal proximity of disclosure, retaliatory payroll action, and bad evaluation are classic “but-for” causation under EEOC Enforcement Guidance.
Performance evaluation began after disclosure, not as part of routine process.	System records and audit logs confirm timing and sequence.

V. Legal Name of the Violation

Constructive Interference with ADA Rights
Retaliation for Protected Medical Disclosure
Payroll Retaliation (WHD/DOL)
Violation of Confidentiality and Due Process

VI. Call to Action for Agencies and Record Review

This singular incident should be formally memorialized and transmitted to:

EEOC (Charge No. 12K-2025-00001) – Retaliation, failure to accommodate, due process denial
DOL WHD – Unlawful payroll withholding
DOJ Civil Rights Division – Disability-based discrimination
OSIG Virginia – State-level labor violations
IRS/SSA – For wage/tax misreporting review

All parties and agencies are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this incident and its evidentiary record in accordance with applicable law.

Memorialization and Legal Notice:

This incident is entered into the permanent record and is subject to cross-agency and judicial review.
Any attempt to disclaim, “fix,” or distance from these actions will not defeat the evidentiary chain, as the record is independently corroborated by system logs, emails, and contemporaneous documentation.