IN THE MATTER OF:
Thomas D. Coates, Complainant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD | DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]
This motion and addenda are 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.
The scope of 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 table continues the formal record of contradictions between the MetLife Disability File and Cox Communications’ Position Statement, as cited in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.
| # | Page | Cox Claim | Refutation & Legal Basis | Supporting Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2.2 | "Cox provided Mr. Coates with extensive accommodations" | Violates 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A): No accommodation letters produced. Workday logs show 0 approved accommodations. | Exhibit 7: Workday Accommodation Request Logs (2024-07-01 to 2024-11-30) |
| 2 | 10.4 | "Mr. Coates refused to return to work" | Contradicted by 29 C.F.R. § 825.311(c): MetLife records confirm active STD claim through 2024-07-01. | Exhibit 12: MetLife Approval Letter (2024-06-28) |
| Page | MetLife Disability File | Cox Position Statement | Contradiction / Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| p.13 | “System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox.” | “No delay occurred; employee failed to complete forms.” | Contradiction over procedural delay. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
| p.13 | “Workday records confirm submission of RTW letters.” | “Employee did not submit any documentation for return.” | Contradiction over document submission. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
| p.14 | “July 11th payroll adjustment lacked cause.” | “Payroll was accurate and properly calculated.” | Contradiction in payroll legitimacy. FLSA § 206, § 207 |
| p.14 | “Doctor's letter dated Oct 22 recommends continued leave.” | “No new medical justification was provided after October.” | Contradiction over medical basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
| p.14 | “Employee's RTW status was contingent upon accommodations.” | “RTW refusal was unrelated to accommodations.” | Contradiction on RTW causation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “All supporting documentation submitted prior to Nov 18.” | “No documentation received before Nov 21.” | Contradiction on timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c) |
| p.15 | “Employee instructed to return pending physician approval.” | “Employee refused to engage in RTW conversation.” | Contradiction over engagement. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) |
| p.15 | “STD eligibility confirmed by MetLife.” | “STD eligibility never confirmed.” | Contradiction on benefit eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
| p.15 | “Employee asked for clarification on accommodations.” | “Employee never disputed accommodations offered.” | Contradiction on interactive process. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “Payroll adjustments were executed during unresolved disability status.” | “All payroll changes were post-approval.” | Contradiction on timing of wage changes. FLSA § 215(a)(3) |
| p.16 | “Medical clearance included limitations.” | “No restrictions were communicated.” | Contradiction on accommodation scope. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) |
| p.16 | “Workday entries confirm communication on benefits access.” | “Employee failed to access or complete enrollment.” | Contradiction on benefits barrier. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)(1) |
| p.16 | “ESC never acknowledged escalation ticket.” | “ESC responded to all inquiries.” | Contradiction on internal case status. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) |
| p.17 | “Documentation was resubmitted on November 17.” | “No updated documentation was ever received.” | Contradiction on document delivery. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) |
| p.17 | “Cox failed to inform of missing items before cutoff.” | “Employee failed to meet deadline for submission.” | Contradiction over procedural notification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
This table continues the formal record of contradictions between the MetLife Disability File and Cox Communications’ Position Statement, as cited in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.
| Page | MetLife Disability File | Cox Position Statement | Contradiction / Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| p.13 | “System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox.” | “No delay occurred; employee failed to complete forms.” | Contradiction over procedural delay. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
| p.13 | “Workday records confirm submission of RTW letters.” | “Employee did not submit any documentation for return.” | Contradiction over document submission. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
| p.14 | “July 11th payroll adjustment lacked cause.” | “Payroll was accurate and properly calculated.” | Contradiction in payroll legitimacy. FLSA § 206, § 207 |
| p.14 | “Doctor's letter dated Oct 22 recommends continued leave.” | “No new medical justification was provided after October.” | Contradiction over medical basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
| p.14 | “Employee's RTW status was contingent upon accommodations.” | “RTW refusal was unrelated to accommodations.” | Contradiction on RTW causation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “All supporting documentation submitted prior to Nov 18.” | “No documentation received before Nov 21.” | Contradiction on timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c) |
| p.15 | “Employee instructed to return pending physician approval.” | “Employee refused to engage in RTW conversation.” | Contradiction over engagement. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) |
| p.15 | “STD eligibility confirmed by MetLife.” | “STD eligibility never confirmed.” | Contradiction on benefit eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
| p.15 | “Employee asked for clarification on accommodations.” | “Employee never disputed accommodations offered.” | Contradiction on interactive process. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “Payroll adjustments were executed during unresolved disability status.” | “All payroll changes were post-approval.” | Contradiction on timing of wage changes. FLSA § 215(a)(3) |
| p.16 | “Medical clearance included limitations.” | “No restrictions were communicated.” | Contradiction on accommodation scope. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) |
| p.16 | “Workday entries confirm communication on benefits access.” | “Employee failed to access or complete enrollment.” | Contradiction on benefits barrier. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)(1) |
| p.16 | “ESC never acknowledged escalation ticket.” | “ESC responded to all inquiries.” | Contradiction on internal case status. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) |
| p.17 | “Documentation was resubmitted on November 17.” | “No updated documentation was ever received.” | Contradiction on document delivery. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) |
| p.17 | “Cox failed to inform of missing items before cutoff.” | “Employee failed to meet deadline for submission.” | Contradiction over procedural notification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
This table continues the formal record of contradictions between the MetLife Disability File and Cox Communications’ Position Statement, as cited in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.
| Page | MetLife Disability File | Cox Position Statement | Contradiction / Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| p.13 | “System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox.” | “No delay occurred; employee failed to complete forms.” | Contradiction over procedural delay. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
| p.13 | “Workday records confirm submission of RTW letters.” | “Employee did not submit any documentation for return.” | Contradiction over document submission. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
| p.14 | “July 11th payroll adjustment lacked cause.” | “Payroll was accurate and properly calculated.” | Contradiction in payroll legitimacy. FLSA § 206, § 207 |
| p.14 | “Doctor's letter dated Oct 22 recommends continued leave.” | “No new medical justification was provided after October.” | Contradiction over medical basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
| p.14 | “Employee's RTW status was contingent upon accommodations.” | “RTW refusal was unrelated to accommodations.” | Contradiction on RTW causation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “All supporting documentation submitted prior to Nov 18.” | “No documentation received before Nov 21.” | Contradiction on timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c) |
| p.15 | “Employee instructed to return pending physician approval.” | “Employee refused to engage in RTW conversation.” | Contradiction over engagement. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) |
| p.15 | “STD eligibility confirmed by MetLife.” | “STD eligibility never confirmed.” | Contradiction on benefit eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
| p.15 | “Employee asked for clarification on accommodations.” | “Employee never disputed accommodations offered.” | Contradiction on interactive process. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “Payroll adjustments were executed during unresolved disability status.” | “All payroll changes were post-approval.” | Contradiction on timing of wage changes. FLSA § 215(a)(3) |
| p.16 | “Medical clearance included limitations.” | “No restrictions were communicated.” | Contradiction on accommodation scope. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) |
| p.16 | “Workday entries confirm communication on benefits access.” | “Employee failed to access or complete enrollment.” | Contradiction on benefits barrier. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)(1) |
| p.16 | “ESC never acknowledged escalation ticket.” | “ESC responded to all inquiries.” | Contradiction on internal case status. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) |
| p.17 | “Documentation was resubmitted on November 17.” | “No updated documentation was ever received.” | Contradiction on document delivery. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) |
| p.17 | “Cox failed to inform of missing items before cutoff.” | “Employee failed to meet deadline for submission.” | Contradiction over procedural notification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
This table continues the formal record of contradictions between the MetLife Disability File and Cox Communications’ Position Statement, as cited in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.
| Page | MetLife Disability File | Cox Position Statement | Contradiction / Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| p.13 | “System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox.” | “No delay occurred; employee failed to complete forms.” | Contradiction over procedural delay. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
| p.13 | “Workday records confirm submission of RTW letters.” | “Employee did not submit any documentation for return.” | Contradiction over document submission. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
| p.14 | “July 11th payroll adjustment lacked cause.” | “Payroll was accurate and properly calculated.” | Contradiction in payroll legitimacy. FLSA § 206, § 207 |
| p.14 | “Doctor's letter dated Oct 22 recommends continued leave.” | “No new medical justification was provided after October.” | Contradiction over medical basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
| p.14 | “Employee's RTW status was contingent upon accommodations.” | “RTW refusal was unrelated to accommodations.” | Contradiction on RTW causation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “All supporting documentation submitted prior to Nov 18.” | “No documentation received before Nov 21.” | Contradiction on timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c) |
| p.15 | “Employee instructed to return pending physician approval.” | “Employee refused to engage in RTW conversation.” | Contradiction over engagement. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) |
| p.15 | “STD eligibility confirmed by MetLife.” | “STD eligibility never confirmed.” | Contradiction on benefit eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
| p.15 | “Employee asked for clarification on accommodations.” | “Employee never disputed accommodations offered.” | Contradiction on interactive process. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “Payroll adjustments were executed during unresolved disability status.” | “All payroll changes were post-approval.” | Contradiction on timing of wage changes. FLSA § 215(a)(3) |
| p.16 | “Medical clearance included limitations.” | “No restrictions were communicated.” | Contradiction on accommodation scope. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) |
| p.16 | “Workday entries confirm communication on benefits access.” | “Employee failed to access or complete enrollment.” | Contradiction on benefits barrier. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)(1) |
| p.16 | “ESC never acknowledged escalation ticket.” | “ESC responded to all inquiries.” | Contradiction on internal case status. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) |
| p.17 | “Documentation was resubmitted on November 17.” | “No updated documentation was ever received.” | Contradiction on document delivery. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) |
| p.17 | “Cox failed to inform of missing items before cutoff.” | “Employee failed to meet deadline for submission.” | Contradiction over procedural notification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
This table continues the formal record of contradictions between the MetLife Disability File and Cox Communications’ Position Statement, as cited in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.
| Page | MetLife Disability File | Cox Position Statement | Contradiction / Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| p.13 | “System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox.” | “No delay occurred; employee failed to complete forms.” | Contradiction over procedural delay. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
| p.13 | “Workday records confirm submission of RTW letters.” | “Employee did not submit any documentation for return.” | Contradiction over document submission. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
| p.14 | “July 11th payroll adjustment lacked cause.” | “Payroll was accurate and properly calculated.” | Contradiction in payroll legitimacy. FLSA § 206, § 207 |
| p.14 | “Doctor's letter dated Oct 22 recommends continued leave.” | “No new medical justification was provided after October.” | Contradiction over medical basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
| p.14 | “Employee's RTW status was contingent upon accommodations.” | “RTW refusal was unrelated to accommodations.” | Contradiction on RTW causation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “All supporting documentation submitted prior to Nov 18.” | “No documentation received before Nov 21.” | Contradiction on timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c) |
| p.15 | “Employee instructed to return pending physician approval.” | “Employee refused to engage in RTW conversation.” | Contradiction over engagement. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) |
| p.15 | “STD eligibility confirmed by MetLife.” | “STD eligibility never confirmed.” | Contradiction on benefit eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
| p.15 | “Employee asked for clarification on accommodations.” | “Employee never disputed accommodations offered.” | Contradiction on interactive process. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “Payroll adjustments were executed during unresolved disability status.” | “All payroll changes were post-approval.” | Contradiction on timing of wage changes. FLSA § 215(a)(3) |
| p.16 | “Medical clearance included limitations.” | “No restrictions were communicated.” | Contradiction on accommodation scope. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) |
| p.16 | “Workday entries confirm communication on benefits access.” | “Employee failed to access or complete enrollment.” | Contradiction on benefits barrier. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)(1) |
| p.16 | “ESC never acknowledged escalation ticket.” | “ESC responded to all inquiries.” | Contradiction on internal case status. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) |
| p.17 | “Documentation was resubmitted on November 17.” | “No updated documentation was ever received.” | Contradiction on document delivery. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) |
| p.17 | “Cox failed to inform of missing items before cutoff.” | “Employee failed to meet deadline for submission.” | Contradiction over procedural notification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
This table continues the formal record of contradictions between the MetLife Disability File and Cox Communications’ Position Statement, as cited in EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.
| Page | MetLife Disability File | Cox Position Statement | Contradiction / Statute |
|---|---|---|---|
| p.13 | “System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox.” | “No delay occurred; employee failed to complete forms.” | Contradiction over procedural delay. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
| p.13 | “Workday records confirm submission of RTW letters.” | “Employee did not submit any documentation for return.” | Contradiction over document submission. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
| p.14 | “July 11th payroll adjustment lacked cause.” | “Payroll was accurate and properly calculated.” | Contradiction in payroll legitimacy. FLSA § 206, § 207 |
| p.14 | “Doctor's letter dated Oct 22 recommends continued leave.” | “No new medical justification was provided after October.” | Contradiction over medical basis. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
| p.14 | “Employee's RTW status was contingent upon accommodations.” | “RTW refusal was unrelated to accommodations.” | Contradiction on RTW causation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “All supporting documentation submitted prior to Nov 18.” | “No documentation received before Nov 21.” | Contradiction on timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c) |
| p.15 | “Employee instructed to return pending physician approval.” | “Employee refused to engage in RTW conversation.” | Contradiction over engagement. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(d)(4)(A) |
| p.15 | “STD eligibility confirmed by MetLife.” | “STD eligibility never confirmed.” | Contradiction on benefit eligibility. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
| p.15 | “Employee asked for clarification on accommodations.” | “Employee never disputed accommodations offered.” | Contradiction on interactive process. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
| p.15 | “Payroll adjustments were executed during unresolved disability status.” | “All payroll changes were post-approval.” | Contradiction on timing of wage changes. FLSA § 215(a)(3) |
| p.16 | “Medical clearance included limitations.” | “No restrictions were communicated.” | Contradiction on accommodation scope. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5) |
| p.16 | “Workday entries confirm communication on benefits access.” | “Employee failed to access or complete enrollment.” | Contradiction on benefits barrier. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b)(1) |
| p.16 | “ESC never acknowledged escalation ticket.” | “ESC responded to all inquiries.” | Contradiction on internal case status. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) |
| p.17 | “Documentation was resubmitted on November 17.” | “No updated documentation was ever received.” | Contradiction on document delivery. 29 C.F.R. § 825.305(b) |
| p.17 | “Cox failed to inform of missing items before cutoff.” | “Employee failed to meet deadline for submission.” | Contradiction over procedural notification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
| # | Page | Unsupported Claim | Missing Evidence Type | EEOC Regulation Violated |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | 2.0 | "Cox undeniably provided reasonable accommodations" | Approval letters, ADA interactive process documentation | 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3) |
Certified as served to: