To:
Charlotte A. Burrows, Chair
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Office of the Chair
131 M Street, NE
Washington, DC 20507
Email: info@eeoc.gov

Dear Chair Burrows,

I am writing to clarify and emphasize that my concerns are not about any failure on my part to upload documents to the EEOC portal. Rather, my concerns relate to the EEOC’s failure to process, act upon, and respond to numerous important communications, motions, and requests that I have sent directly to the assigned investigator and office-many of which require agency action, clarification, or service, not mere recordkeeping. These include, but are not limited to, requests for clarification, procedural motions, demands for service or processing of documents, and follow-up questions regarding the handling of my case. In every instance where I have received an important document or directive requiring my action, I have responded promptly and substantively. To allow such items to sit unaddressed or unanswered, whether due to administrative oversight or lack of compliance, is not only contrary to due process but fundamentally undermines the integrity of the EEOC’s mission.

Regardless of these deficiencies, I must insist that all motions and filings I have submitted be served and processed in a timely manner as required by law and by the standards that would be afforded to any represented party or attorney. The integrity of the EEOC process, and my rights as a charging party, cannot be made contingent upon internal administrative lapses or lack of compliance by agency staff.

I am prepared to assist in any way necessary to reproduce or resend any files or correspondence that may be missing from the record. However, I respectfully request clear action and a concrete timeline for correction. I also ask for a formal acknowledgment that my filings will be treated with the seriousness and urgency required by:

• 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (requiring fair and thorough investigation and recordkeeping);
• 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) and § 1601.18 (requiring timely, accurate, and complete maintenance of the record);
• EEOC Quality Control and Best Practices Guidelines (requiring due process and procedural integrity for all charging parties).

As a self-represented claimant, I have encountered repeated reminders from the Norfolk office about what is not their jurisdiction or responsibility, and have had to research and cite the Commission’s own statutes and guidance in order to move my case forward. This has made it clear that unrepresented parties are at a distinct disadvantage, and that the EEOC’s mission can only be fulfilled if all claimants-regardless of resources or legal representation-are given full and fair access to the process.

In summary: I respectfully request that you ensure all of my filings are located, uploaded, and processed without further delay; that all pending motions and requests are acted upon; and that I am provided with a timeline for corrective action. If any additional information or resubmission is needed, please advise me immediately.

Thank you for your attention to these urgent concerns.

To: Alexander Perez, Investigator, Norfolk Area Office; Chief, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C.

Pursuant to the EEOC’s statutory mandate under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b), 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c), § 1601.18, and the Commission’s Quality Control and Best Practices Guidelines, the EEOC is required to ensure that all employer position statements are procedurally sound, fully documented, and supported by sworn or certified evidence before being accepted as part of the administrative record. The EEOC must not accept, rely upon, or transmit for review any position statement that lacks proper authorship, fails to attach referenced documentation, omits sworn affidavits, or otherwise fails to comply with the Commission’s evidentiary and procedural standards. The Commission is further required to formally notify the Respondent of any deficiencies and to demand prompt correction prior to further processing of the charge.

This demand and all related correspondence are to be memorialized in the official charge file and transmitted to all relevant federal and state oversight agencies for coordinated review and enforcement, including but not limited to:

• U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) – Civil Rights Division
• U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) – Wage and Hour Division
• Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
• Social Security Administration (SSA)
• Virginia Equal Opportunity Commission (VEOC)
• Virginia Office of the State Inspector General
• Office of the Governor of Virginia
• Any other federal or state agency with statutory interest in the matters described herein

I hereby demand that the EEOC formally respond to this request in writing, memorialize this demand in the official charge file, and immediately communicate to Cox Communications the requirement to cure all procedural and substantive deficiencies in its position statement, as detailed herein. The integrity of this administrative proceeding-and the statutory rights of the charging party-depend on strict adherence to these requirements and full cross-agency notification.

The document submitted by Cox Communications as its position statement is procedurally and substantively deficient for the following reasons:

• Lack of Author Certification: The statement is unsigned, lacks an identified author, and is not certified by any responsible officer or attorney as required by EEOC practice and 29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(c).
• Absence of Affidavit or Sworn Testimony: No sworn affidavits or declarations are attached from any manager, HR official, or witness to support factual assertions, as required for credibility and admissibility.
• Failure to Attach Referenced Documents: The statement references internal policies, records, and communications but fails to produce or attach them, in violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c).
• Improper Use of Footnotes to Disclaim Investigation: Footnotes on pages 1 and 2 appear to disclaim any formal investigation or disclosure, undermining the integrity of the submission and suggesting a lack of good faith cooperation with the EEOC.
• Vague and Non-Specific Assertions: The statement relies on generalizations and policy summaries rather than specific dates, names, or events, preventing meaningful review or rebuttal.
• Failure to Provide Statutorily Required Details: The statement omits required details such as dates of alleged performance issues, names of decision-makers, and the specific basis for each adverse action, in violation of EEOC evidentiary standards.
• Improper Reliance on Verbal Claims: The statement references verbal conversations and supervisor impressions without documentation, which is inadmissible under EEOC and federal evidentiary rules.
• No Statement of Internal Investigation: There is no evidence of an internal investigation, no interview notes, and no summary of findings, contrary to EEOC best practices.
• Improper Blanket Confidentiality Claims: The statement makes broad assertions of confidentiality without justification or separate redacted exhibits, contrary to EEOC guidance.
• Failure to Certify Completeness and Accuracy: The submission is not certified as complete and accurate under penalty of perjury or professional responsibility.

The Complainant respectfully demands that the EEOC:

• Reject the current position statement as procedurally deficient and not in compliance with EEOC requirements for a valid employer response;
• Formally notify Cox Communications that the current submission will not be considered a valid position statement until the following are provided:
  • A signed and certified statement of authorship and accuracy by the responsible attorney or officer;
  • Sworn affidavits or declarations from all managers, HR officials, and witnesses relied upon for factual assertions;
  • Full production of all referenced documents, policies, records, and communications in the form required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c);
  • Specific dates, names, and statutory bases for all claims, defenses, and adverse actions referenced in the statement;
  • Clarification and removal of any improper disclaimers or footnotes that suggest a lack of formal investigation or cooperation with the EEOC.
• Memorialize this demand and the deficiencies identified herein in the official record for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001;
• Require Cox Communications to cure all deficiencies within ten (10) business days or risk having its position statement excluded from consideration and referred for further enforcement action.

I certify that this demand has been served via EEOC Portal and electronic mail to:

• Alexander Perez, Investigator, U.S. EEOC – Norfolk Area Office
• Chief, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Washington, D.C.
• Virginia Equal Opportunity Commission (VEOC)
• DOJ Civil Rights Division
• DOL Wage and Hour Division
• IRS
• SSA
• Virginia Office of the State Inspector General
• Office of the Governor of Virginia
• Other designated agency officials as required by protocol

Dated: May 15, 2025

The integrity of this administrative proceeding depends on strict adherence to EEOC procedures and evidentiary standards. The current Cox Communications position statement fails to meet these requirements and must be cured before it can be considered. The Complainant respectfully demands that the EEOC take immediate corrective action as outlined above and provide a written response memorializing its actions.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE AND AGENCY NOTIFICATION
I, Thomas D. Coates, do hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on this date, a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion No. 1: Memorialization and Request for Admission of Material Statement was served upon the following parties and agencies:

• Via EEOC Portal and Email: Sent to Investigator Alexander Perez, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) – Norfolk Area Office, 200 Granby Street, Suite 739, Norfolk, VA 23510. Main Office: 1-800-669-4000. Fax: 757-441-6720.
• Via Internal Routing: Delivered electronically to designated EEOC records and relevant internal units for acknowledgment and audit purposes.

Additional Copies Furnished To:

• The Office of the Governor of Virginia, for review under constitutional and public oversight of civil rights compliance in state employment practices.
• U.S. Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division, to alert of potential overlap with FMLA, wage protections, and ADA enforcement jurisdiction.
• U.S. Department of Justice – Civil Rights Division, in the event federal investigatory jurisdiction is triggered under 42 U.S.C. § 12188.

These secondary deliveries are executed in the interest of:

• Ensuring receipt through alternative routing channels within the EEOC and oversight agencies;
• Preserving a full record of communications to relevant oversight bodies with statutory authority over disability rights enforcement;
• Notifying supervisory and executive authorities of potential delays or non-compliance with ADA-mandated processes.

Executed this 15th day of May, 2025
Virginia Beach, VA