Contrary to Cox Communications’ narrative that I did not disclose my family health crisis until June 27, 2024, documentary evidence-including emails, Workday system records, and supervisor communications-shows I notified my supervisor, Donte Holmes, and HR partner, Azariah Workman, of my son’s illness and my need for leave as early as June 19, 2024. I followed all procedures, including calling the designated number provided by Mr. Holmes to report my absence due to my son’s hospitalization.

On June 20, 2024, HR partner Azariah Workman actively assisted my supervisor in drafting a negative evaluation, one day after my protected disclosures and after I had requested leave. This evaluation was later rescinded by the HR Center, which confirmed it would not remain in my record. These facts directly contradict Cox’s assertion that my disclosure was a last-minute attempt to avoid discipline and demonstrate a pattern of retaliation and bad faith.

• June 19, 2024: I requested leave and notified my supervisor of my son’s illness.
• June 20, 2024: Azariah Workman assisted in preparing a negative evaluation after my protected disclosure.
• June 22, 2024: Disciplinary actions initiated by Donte Holmes, with HR involvement.
• August 2024: HR Center confirmed the negative evaluation would be removed from my record.
• Workday and email records confirm all communications and actions.

1. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a), (b)(4) (ADA): Prohibits discrimination and retaliation for associational disability and requests for accommodation.
2. 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(1)-(2) (FMLA): Prohibits interference and retaliation for exercising family medical leave rights.
3. 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Title VII): Prohibits retaliation for protected activity, including requesting leave or reporting discrimination.
4. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12: Prohibits retaliation under ADA regulations.
5. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c): Prohibits FMLA retaliation and adverse action for protected leave requests.
6. 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c): Requires employers to provide all relevant documentation and prohibits reliance on unsubstantiated claims.
7. EEOC Enforcement Guidance (915.002, 2006): Prohibits adverse action for requesting accommodation or reporting disability-related needs.
8. EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8: Retaliation for protected activity is strictly prohibited and is a separate basis for liability.
9. EEOC Quality Control and Best Practices Guidelines: Require accurate, complete, and timely recordkeeping and prohibit manipulation of the record.
10. Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2): Admissions by party-opponents (emails, HR records) are admissible as evidence of pretext and retaliation.

The evidence demonstrates that Cox Communications’ narrative is not only factually incorrect but is contradicted by contemporaneous records. The timing of the negative evaluation-drafted with HR’s help immediately after my protected disclosure and rescinded after HR review-shows a retaliatory motive. The employer’s subsequent assertion that my disclosure was “first made” on June 27, 2024, is demonstrably false and constitutes a pretext for adverse action.

The company’s actions violate multiple federal statutes and EEOC regulations, including requirements for good faith, non-retaliation, and accurate recordkeeping. The pattern of disregarding my requests, manipulating evaluations, and later attempting to erase the record of retaliation further supports a finding of bad faith and liability.

• Immediate investigation of the record manipulation and retaliation by Cox Communications and its agents.
• Formal finding that Cox’s narrative is contradicted by the evidence and constitutes pretext.
• Order Cox to produce all Workday, HR, and email records related to my leave requests and evaluations.
• Memorialize all contemporaneous disclosures and HR actions as evidence in the administrative record.
• Refer findings to the DOJ and DOL for further enforcement as warranted.