Dear Investigator Perez,

I write to reiterate my formal demand for a written legal justification regarding your failure to respond to my prior requests for legal basis and procedural explanation in connection with EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.

As previously stated in my Formal Motion No. 1 and subsequent filings, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and its representatives are required by law to provide substantive responses to material questions and demands for legal justification raised by a charging party. Your ongoing refusal or failure to do so is inconsistent with both the letter and spirit of the EEOC’s statutory obligations.

Legal and Regulatory Authority Requiring Substantive Response:

• 42 U.S.C. § 12117(a) (ADA enforcement via Title VII procedures): Requires the Commission to apply Title VII’s procedures, including the right of parties to submit evidence and receive reasoned responses.
• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b): Mandates that the Commission “shall make an investigation” and that all parties “shall have the right to submit statements and evidence.” The Commission is required to consider and respond to such submissions.
• 29 C.F.R. §§ 1601.15(c), 1601.18: Requires the Commission to receive, preserve, and respond to party statements and evidence, and to provide written notice of findings and determinations.
• EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements: The EEOC’s own guidance requires clear, complete, and responsive communication, and discourages unsupported generalizations or conclusory statements.
• EEOC Management Directive 110 (MD-110): All factual assertions must be supported by evidence, and investigators must disregard unsupported statements. The Commission is required to provide reasoned explanations for its actions.

Given these statutory and regulatory mandates, it is necessary and proper for you to provide a written, legally-supported response to my formal demand for justification of your actions and the Commission’s acceptance of an unsigned, unsupported position statement from Cox Communications. Your failure to do so risks violating federal law, undermining the integrity of the administrative process, and prejudicing my rights as a charging party.

I respectfully request that you provide, within five (5) business days of this letter, a written response that:

1. Identifies the specific legal and procedural basis for your actions and inaction;
2. Explains the Commission’s rationale for accepting and relying upon an unsigned, unsworn position statement from Respondent;
3. Confirms that all my filings and demands have been entered into the official record and transmitted to all relevant oversight agencies;
4. Addresses each material question and demand for legal justification previously submitted in my Formal Motion No. 1 and subsequent addenda.

Please be advised that this demand and all related correspondence are being mirrored to 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 for independent review and oversight.

Should you fail to provide a timely and legally sufficient response, I reserve all rights to seek further administrative and judicial review, including but not limited to referral for oversight, professional standards review, and potential legal action for denial of due process.

Respectfully,
/s/ Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com | (757) 374-3539