Thomas D. Coates, Claimant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD | DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]
I submit this cover letter with humility and respect for the process, fully aware that no single document can capture the weight of lived experience or the impact of institutional neglect. Yet, it is my hope that what follows will serve as both a record and a call to conscience—a demonstration that, even when procedures falter, the truth can and will be brought to bear. This letter precedes a comprehensive legal submission with multiple attachments and exhibits. The accompanying main document presents a full evidentiary record and detailed legal argument, organized for immediate review by the EEOC, cross-agency partners, and potential legal and advocacy representatives.
The evidence and documentation provided are not simply procedural—they are deeply personal. They reflect years of perseverance, repeated attempts to seek redress through every available channel, and the lived consequences of institutional inaction. This submission is designed to make the scope and seriousness of these violations unmistakable, and to ensure that every reviewer—whether legal, regulatory, or public—can see not only the harm but the imperative for remedy.
Each exhibit is referenced in the main body and indexed for immediate review. The cumulative effect is not only to prove the violations but to make denial impossible. This is a record designed to command attention, demand justice, and withstand scrutiny from any forum—legal, regulatory, or public.
This motion and its annexes 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.
Back to Table of ContentsThis 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 Claimant 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.
Back to Table of ContentsThis motion is submitted pursuant to:
The Claimant respectfully requests that the EEOC and cross-agency recipients:
# | Infraction | Individuals/Principals | Records & Systems | Forensic Data/Discovery Actions | Testimony/Demand |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Unsigned, Unverified Submission (29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(c)) | Justin Miles (Outside Counsel), Kia Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), Lakita Gaines (HR Lead) | Final position statement file; Submission logs (EEOC portal, email); Internal approval emails | Extract digital signature metadata Pull all email chains approving submission Identify all contributors and reviewers in document properties Preserve all drafts and transmission records | Demand sworn affidavit from Justin Miles and Kia Painter attesting to authorship, review, and certification of all factual assertions. |
2 | Absence of Sworn Declarations | Kia Painter, Lakita Gaines, Inelyz Martinez, Donte Holmes | HR case files; Internal investigation notes; List of all managers/decision-makers referenced | Identify all factual claims lacking sworn support Extract HR case file sign-off logs Pull all internal emails referencing “affidavit” or “declaration” List all witnesses for subpoena | Demand sworn declarations from each named principal for every material assertion made. |
3 | Verbal Conversation Claims Unsubstantiated | HR Manager (assigned), Kia Painter, Donte Holmes | Phone logs, call records (VOIP, Teams/Zoom), Email follow-ups, HRIS notes | Subpoena call logs for all dates referenced Extract Teams/Zoom/Slack call records Forensically review HRIS notes for edits/creation dates Demand production of all contemporaneous documentation | Each HR principal must provide a sworn statement with date/time, attendees, and substance of every referenced conversation. |
4 | Contradictory Payroll Statements | Payroll Administrator, MetLife Coordinator, Ursula Rogers | Payroll system logs (Workday, ADP), Paystubs, IRS filings, MetLife STD claim records | Pull all paystubs and payroll logs for relevant periods Compare payroll to MetLife claim periods Extract IRS/SSA reporting for same intervals Forensically analyze “Stay Pay” entries and zeroed-out pay | Sworn payroll administrator and MetLife coordinator testimony on all entries, discrepancies, and reporting. |
5 | Fabricated Access/Return Narrative | Jennifer Melton, Inelyz Martinez | Physician RTW letters, ADA accommodation forms, HRIS access logs | Extract and compare all RTW documentation Audit HRIS access block/restore records Subpoena physician communications | Testimony from HR and medical contacts on RTW instructions, access restoration, and timeline. |
6 | Improper Footnotes to Disclaim Responsibility | Justin Miles (author), Cox Legal Team | Drafts of position statement, Email chains about footnotes, Internal legal review notes | Demand production of all drafts and revision history Identify all contributors to disclaimers Subpoena legal team for rationale behind disclaimers | Sworn affidavit from each legal drafter as to accuracy and intent of disclaimers. |
7 | Misrepresentation of Performance Records | Donte Holmes, Scorecard Administrator, Performance Coach | Scorecard logs, Performance review emails, Accommodation request records | Pull all performance review drafts and final versions Audit for edits after accommodation requests Compare timeline to ADA/FMLA requests | Sworn testimony from all reviewers on content, timing, and knowledge of accommodations. |
8 | Disregard of Disability Status in Harassment Claims | Supervisors, HR Compliance, Jennifer Melton | Medical records, Email notifications, HR complaint logs | Extract all emails referencing disability or ADA Audit HR complaint system for entries and responses Subpoena supervisors for knowledge and response | Testimony from all involved on knowledge of disability and steps taken. |
9 | Absence of Internal Investigation or Documentation | Lakita Gaines, Internal HR Compliance Officer, Ursula Rogers | Internal investigation files, Interview notes, HRIS audit logs | Demand all investigation notes and logs Subpoena all interview participants Forensically review HRIS for undeclared edits | Sworn affidavits from all compliance officers regarding investigation scope and findings. |
10 | Improper Grouping of EEOC Matters | Alexander Perez (EEOC), Cox Legal Team | EEOC charge files, Internal legal memos, Correspondence with EEOC | Pull all correspondence regarding charge grouping Audit EEOC and Cox records for consolidation discussions Identify all legal team members involved | Sworn testimony from Perez and Cox legal on rationale, process, and due process compliance. |
Failure to comply will be memorialized as non-response, subject to adverse inference, sanctions, and referral for further agency or judicial action. This memorialization is ongoing and encompasses all conduct, statements, and evidence relevant to these proceedings, not limited to the position statement alone.
The following individuals are hereby formally memorialized as principals, agents, or respondents for all purposes of this record. Each has, at various times and in various forms:
Each individual named below is subject to:
Failure to comply will be memorialized as non-response, subject to adverse inference, sanctions, and referral for further agency or judicial action. This memorialization is ongoing and encompasses all conduct, statements, and evidence relev
Preservation and Legal Notification:
This event 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 obligation to preserve all related payroll, system, and correspondence records for independent review and audit. Any attempt to “amend,” disclaim, or distance from these actions will not defeat the integrity of the preserved record, as the evidentiary chain is independently corroborated by system logs, emails, and contemporaneous documentation.
On June 28, 2024, Thomas D. Coates requested a confidential meeting with his manager, Azariah Workman, to discuss emergent medical concerns related to exacerbated cardiac symptoms and acute stress resulting from his son’s illness. This request was made with the expectation of confidentiality, consistent with ADA mandates that protect medical disclosures.
Despite the private 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 legitimate 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 suspended Coates’s pay, a decision also reflected in PeopleSoft and Workday audit logs. No additional medical information had been submitted to justify this modification, 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 remunerated again for nearly 30 days, despite repeated efforts to resolve the issue with HR, supervisors, and internal support systems.
What Should Have Occurred | What Actually Occurred |
---|---|
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. | A confidential medical disclosure was made in a compromised environment. |
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. | A verbal accommodation (2 days of paid medical leave) was given but reversed within hours via a payroll intervention. |
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. | Pay was cut off immediately following the disclosure of a disability-related health crisis. |
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 negative evaluation was initiated while the employee was under medical distress and after invoking ADA and FMLA protections. |
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. |
This timeline meticulously chronicles a persistent pattern of misconduct and alleged actions, detailing specific events and communications that unequivocally demonstrate a profound disregard for the Complainant's rights and a manifest absence of good faith.
Proof: Contemporaneous email/text correspondence and Workday logs.
Proof: Workday system logs.
Proof: Email/ticket submitted to HR.
Proof: HR ticket logs and email chains.
Proof: Email chains, HR ticket logs, and screenshots.
Proof: Workman’s own system logs.
Proof: Documented correspondence.
Proof: Email correspondence.
Proof: Comparison of Workman’s statements versus Complainant’s documented record.
Proof: Complainant’s detailed documentation.
Proof: Correspondence and payroll records.
This singular incident should be formally memorialized and transmitted to:
MetLife Disability File / Complainant's Record | Cox Position Statement Claim | Contradiction / Legal Basis |
---|---|---|
Your disability claim was received on May 28, 2024 and approved for the period June 3, 2024 through July 1, 2024. (MetLife Letter, June 3, 2024) | No leave or accommodation was requested for absences in June 2024. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.2) | Contradicts assertion of no request. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
Employer contact: HR was notified of your claim on May 29, 2024. (MetLife File, May 29, 2024) | Unaware of any disability claim or need for accommodation prior to disciplinary action. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.3) | Contradicts claim of lack of notice. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Medical documentation received and accepted June 2, 2024. (MetLife File, June 2, 2024) | No medical documentation was ever provided to support absences. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.4) | Contradicts assertion. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) |
Approved for Short-Term Disability (STD) benefits for June 3 - July 1, 2024. (MetLife Letter, June 3, 2024) | Absent without leave and subject to corrective action for the same period. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.5) | Contradicts payroll/discipline records. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220 |
Employer failed to respond to MetLife's request for additional information on June 5, 2024. (MetLife File, June 5, 2024) | Fully cooperated with all disability claims and requests. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.6) | Demonstrates lack of cooperation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Claim approved based on medical necessity and documentation provided. (MetLife Letter, June 3, 2024) | No documentation was ever provided. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.4) | Contradicts claim. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Disability claim covers all absences from June 3, 2024 through July 1, 2024. (MetLife File, July 1, 2024) | Absences in June were unexcused and subject to corrective action. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.5) | Contradicts basis for discipline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) |
Return-to-work date set for July 2, 2024. (MetLife Letter, July 1, 2024) | No expected return-to-work date communicated. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.6) | Contradicts claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Employee notified of right to appeal any denial or reduction in benefits. (MetLife Letter, July 1, 2024) | No rights or benefits denied. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.7) | Contradicts assertion. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300 |
Employer failed to provide requested payroll information to MetLife. (MetLife File, June 10, 2024) | All necessary payroll and employment information provided. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.8) | Contradicts claim. 29 C.F.R. § 825.500 |
STD benefit payments issued for June 3 - July 1, 2024. (MetLife File, July 1, 2024) | Not entitled to any paid leave or disability benefits. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.9) | Contradicts payroll records. 29 C.F.R. § 825.215 |
Employer delayed response to MetLife's request for employment verification. (MetLife File, June 10, 2024) | Responded promptly to all requests. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.10) | Contradicts MetLife's record. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b) |
Claim file includes all medical and employment documentation required. (MetLife File, July 1, 2024) | No documentation was ever received. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.11) | Contradicts claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c) |
MetLife notified employer of employee's protected status under ADA and FMLA. (MetLife File, June 3, 2024) | Unaware of any protected status or need for accommodation. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.12) | Contradicts assertion. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Employee engaged in protected activity by filing a disability claim. (MetLife File, May 28, 2024) | No protected activity occurred prior to corrective action. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.13) | Contradicts timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 |
MetLife confirmed receipt of updated medical restrictions on October 22, 2024. Approved included phased return and remote work. (Exhibit J) | Cox did not receive any updated restrictions after the initial documentation. (SOP, p.29). Mr. Coates rejected all accommodations. (SOP, p.12) | Contradicts interactive process obligations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) Misrepresents acceptance. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Employee medically cleared to return with restrictions Nov. 21, 2024. | Mr. Coates never communicated readiness to return. (SOP, p.31) | False claim regarding communication. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d) |
Employer failed to respond to multiple coordination requests from MetLife. | Cox collaborated fully with MetLife. | Evidence of non-cooperation. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
Pay inconsistencies noted and reported to MetLife. | All pay records were accurate and verified. | Contradiction over payroll truthfulness. 29 C.F.R. § 825.500(g) |
Leave approved through July 1, 2024, and again through Nov. 20, 2024. | Leave was never officially approved for those dates. | Contradicts documentation and payments. 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a) |
Medical release submitted for Nov. 21, 2024 RTW. | Mr. Coates failed to submit timely RTW letter. (SOP, p.30) | Documented submission exists. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) |
No indication of voluntary resignation. | Employee voluntarily resigned by failing to return. | Misrepresents ADA/family leave protections. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b) |
Employee status changed prior to appeal period expiration. | All employee rights and appeal periods were honored. | Due process breach. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(d)(1) |
System notes reflect delay in pay processing after June 28. | No delay in pay noted in system. | Evidence conflict, possible wage violation. 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a) |
Workday logs show adjustments made retroactively. | No retroactive changes occurred. | Log audit discrepancy. 29 C.F.R. § 516.6(a)(1) |
Employer instructed MetLife to pause STD case review. | Cox had no role in STD decision-making. | Undermines impartiality. 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(b)(2) |
Benefit enrollment prevented due to HR inaction. | Employee failed to enroll despite assistance. | Obstructive practices. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
MetLife notified Cox of ADA coverage status. | Cox unaware of ADA-qualified condition. | Constructive notice ignored. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4) |
System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox. | No delay occurred; employee failed to complete process. | Delay attributed incorrectly. 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(a) |
Internal logs show repeated employee inquiries. | Mr. Coates made no attempt to contact HR after 7/1/24. | Misrepresentation of engagement. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) |
Short-term disability approval not reversed until August. | Mr. Coates was denied benefits in early July. | Contradictory benefit timing. 29 C.F.R. § 825.212(b) |
Cox provided MetLife incorrect payroll data. | All payroll data was accurate and verified. | Contradiction. FLSA: 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) |
Interactive process began July 2024. | Interactive process began in October. | Delayed engagement violates law. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Case documented as 'medical leave' on July 1 in Workday. | July 1 was unauthorized absence. | Misclassification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
No disciplinary action should occur while on STD. | Corrective action issued June 27 despite STD application. | Interference with leave rights. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) |
Physician documentation received and logged. | No valid medical documentation ever submitted. | Direct contradiction. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c) |
Accommodation request formally submitted Oct. 22. | Employee delayed request. | Fabricated delay. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
Pay halted June 28 with no written justification. | Employee resigned or did not return. | Payroll discontinuation as retaliation. FLSA § 206 |
MetLife confirmed disability due to cardiac condition. | No known disability confirmed. | Ignoring diagnosed condition. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) |
System flagged conflicting evaluations after leave discussion. | Evaluations unrelated to medical status. | Temporal retaliation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12(a) |
Workday shows HR entries altered post-meeting on June 28. | No retroactive changes were made. | System alteration implicates retaliation. 29 C.F.R. § 825.500 |
Employee requested updated job functions. | Mr. Coates never inquired about duties. | Denial of interactive engagement. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Final paycheck inconsistencies reported but not addressed. | All pay was correct. | Pay inquiry neglect. FLSA § 207(e) |
Disability claim upheld despite Cox's lack of cooperation. | Cox fully cooperated. | Discrepancy noted by third party. 29 C.F.R. § 825.307(b) |
These significant contradictions serve as compelling evidence of record falsification, a demonstrable failure to provide reasonable accommodation, interference with Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights, and potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA). Their memorialization is imperative, as they represent material admissions subject to both cross-agency audit and enforcement actions.
I hereby notify the District Office and all oversight agencies that, in the coming days, I will be submitting a comprehensive series of motions and evidentiary addenda. These will include, but are not limited to:
This evidence is crucial to the fair adjudication of this matter and must be reviewed by an impartial and procedurally compliant investigator.
This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.
In light of these standards, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR), the American Bar Association (ABA) Professional Responsibility Committee, or a similar professional standards body for independent review. The purpose is to determine whether the statement meets the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and agency practice.
Back to Table of ContentsComplainant | Thomas D. Coates |
---|---|
Respondent(s) | Cox Communications, Inc., Keith Wilson, Jennifer Melton |
Jurisdiction | EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001 U.S. District Court (Potential Claim) Federal Labor Relations Authority (Unfair Labor Practice Implicated) US Merit system protection act (if US military employed with Cox) |
Date | Event/Action | Evidence Ref. |
---|---|---|
07/19/2024 | Complainant is told that his job may not be held if you took too much time. | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
12/30/2024 | "Unpaid leave of absence was approved through December 29, 2024. You were provided with clear instructions regarding the expectation that you return to work on December 30, 2024. You failed to do so.", | emails from Jennifer Melton on December 9, 2024 and December 31, 2024, and from me on January 1, 2024, Keith Wilson letter Exhibit 6A |
01/02/2025 | Clear instructions to return to work on Thursday, January 2nd, 2025. Unfortunately, you did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation.", Keith Wilson letter, email Ex 6A | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
01/03/2025 | Voluntary resignation" Ex6A letter, email Exhibit 6A | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
01/03/2025 | I will immediately fix it and present the full text directly on screen from now on, or I will provide HTML copyable code, never an image or an inaccessible format unless you explicitly ask for it. Ex 6A letter, email Exhibit 6A Let’s correct it right now. Here’s the full scaffolded, formal, detailed report based on your "Formal Demand for Remediation" email — laid out properly in clear, structured text directly here: | Ex 6B |
Statute/Regulation | Description | Policy Guidance |
---|---|---|
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) | Failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to find reasonable accommodation and the doctor stated to do so. | EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship |
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 | Retaliation for requesting ADA accommodation | EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8: Retaliation |
FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2) | FMLA violation. | 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) |
USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4311 | If US military, it is a violation of veteran rights. | U.S. Department of Labor Vets Guide |
Assertion/Statement | Source | Contradictory Evidence | Implication |
---|---|---|---|
"Your failure to return to work constitutes a voluntary resignation under Cox’s Unpaid Leave of Absence policy." | Keith Wilson letter Ex 6A | Did not have a clear conversation but continued to try and submit evidence. | It was a denial of reasonable action. |
"As outlined in our previous communications (including, but not limited to, emails from Jennifer Melton on December 9, 2024 and December 31, 2024, and from me on January 1, 2024), your unpaid leave of absence was approved through December 29, 2024. You were provided with clear instructions regarding the expectation that you return to work on December 30, 2024. You failed to do so. You were then provided clear instructions to return to work on Thursday, January 2nd, 2025. Unfortunately, you did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation." | Ex 6A | He wanted to submit documentation but was not being provided an opportunity. | His rights were being circumvented by a passive aggressive process. |
Policy Requirement | What Should Have Happened | Actual Action | Deviation |
---|---|---|---|
ADA compliance from Cox Communication | Cox Communication was suppose to engage in good faith interactive process to find reasonable accommodation. | But was met with a wall of paperwork. | The company and individual was not engaging in good faith |
Not retaliating against a complainant. | The company was suppose to acknowledge his complaint and take steps to ensure what happened to him would not happen to others | There was a denial of reasonable action, while also being retaliated against. | A violation. |
Name | Title/Role | Involvement |
---|---|---|
Keith Wilson | VP, Employee Experience & Compliance | Sent separation letter Ex 6A |
Jennifer Melton | CCI-Atlanta Ex 6A | Email chain Ex 6A |
Kia Painter | Senior VP of Operations | Not responding and therefore complicit |
Date | Filing/Agency | Case/Reference | Status/Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Ongoing | This complaint | EEOC Case No. 12K-2025-00001 | There appears to be non compliance |
29. NERC found that Defendant "requiring [Anderson] to apply for positions she was qualified for, only to deny her application with little to no regard of accommodating the lifting requirement in her current positions that was not listed as an essential duty/requirement was a failed accommodation attempt." Id. ", (Anderson Case) | Federal litigation involving | Sony Music v. Cox and https://casetext.com/case/nerc-v-anderson | Pattern of violations |
Date: [Insert Date]
To: [EEOC Investigator, HR, or relevant recipient]
From: Thomas Coates
Subject: Addendum – Memorialization and Challenge of Unsupported Statements
Purpose
This addendum memorializes and formally challenges 48 specific statements made in Cox’s April 2025 Position Statement that lack direct documentary support, legal anchoring, or are unsupported rationalizations. Each statement is referenced by page number. For each, I demand supporting documentation and/or a sworn affidavit. Where such substantiation cannot be produced, I respectfully request the statement be stricken from the record and that an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for making unsupported factual claims.
# | Assertion (summary) | Page | Challenge & Demand |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Claims are speculative and irrelevant overall | 1 | Demand: Produce supporting documentation or affidavit. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
2 | Cox provided “extensive” accommodations to Coates | 2 | Demand: Identify and produce all records or communications evidencing “extensive” accommodations. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
3 | Only denied accommodations outside company control | 2 | Demand: Produce documentation showing which accommodations were denied and why they were outside company control. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
4 | Refusal to return equaled voluntary resignation | 2 | Demand: Produce resignation letter or contemporaneous record of voluntary resignation. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
48 | Anti-retaliation policy compliance claimed without audits | 3 | Demand: Provide documentation of anti-retaliation policy audits or compliance reviews. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
Legal Basis
The EEOC and courts require factual assertions in position statements to be supported by evidence (affidavits, business records, or documentation). Unsupported or speculative statements are improper and should not be considered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and EEOC guidance on position statements.
Requested Relief
That each identified unsupported statement be stricken from the record unless Cox can provide admissible evidence or a sworn affidavit substantiating the claim.
That the record reflect these statements as unsubstantiated and improper.
That an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for any statement made without a good faith evidentiary basis.
That this addendum be attached to and considered part of the official record in this matter.
Conclusion
I reserve the right to supplement this addendum as further unsupported statements are identified. I respectfully request prompt action on this matter to preserve the integrity of the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Coates
June 5, 2025
This addendum expressly incorporates not only the Cox April 2025 position statement but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox’s principals, executives, and HR personnel in any form, including:
The record shows that multiple Cox executives and compliance officers, including Ms. Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), were copied on critical correspondence and were fully aware of the ongoing retaliation and ADA/EEO violations as early as July 2024. These leaders had both a statutory and fiduciary duty to intervene, investigate, and remediate upon receiving evidence of discrimination or a formal EEO/ADA request for help. Their inaction directly enabled the ongoing harm, and their silence constitutes a breach of duty under federal and state law.
The failure of Cox’s highest compliance officer to act on clear evidence of retaliation and ADA violations is itself a violation of law and policy, and raises serious questions about systemic compliance failures at Cox. This pattern is not isolated. If the Chief Compliance Officer and other executives can “turn a blind eye” to such clear-cut evidence, it signals a broader culture of noncompliance and exposes the company to enhanced scrutiny and cross-agency enforcement. This addendum is intended to serve as a model for escalation in all similar Cox cases, and to notify oversight agencies that these failures are not happening in a vacuum.
Each addendum submitted herein is intended to have independent legal force and effect, and should be considered, adjudicated, and preserved in the record regardless of the disposition of the main motion. The facts, legal arguments, and relief requested in this addendum are severable and should be ruled upon independently as necessary to ensure a full and fair adjudication of all issues presented.
The EEOC and all oversight agencies are specifically notified that the scope of this motion and all addenda includes the full web of communications, not just the position statement. Any attempt to “fix” or disclaim a single link in the chain will not defeat the evidentiary record, as the intertwined communications and executive knowledge establish ongoing, systemic violations and fiduciary breaches.
Introduction:
This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.
EEOC Standards and Guidance
EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements:
“A position statement should be clear, concise, complete, and responsive to the allegations. It should provide specific, factual information, including documentation where possible, and avoid unsupported generalizations or conclusory statements.”
Source: EEOC Respondent Position Statement Guidelines
EEOC Enforcement Guidance (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15):
“Each party shall have the right to submit statements and evidence. The Commission shall accord substantial weight to documentary evidence and sworn statements, and shall disregard unsupported allegations.”
EEOC Federal Sector Management Directive 110 (MD-110):
“All factual assertions should be supported by documentary evidence or sworn testimony. Investigators and fact-finders must disregard statements that are not supported by evidence.”
Other Federal Agency Standards
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL):
“All findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Unsupported assertions or conclusions are insufficient.”
See: 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (Administrative Procedure Act)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA Investigations:
“Each claim must be supported by evidence, including affidavits, records, or other documentation. Unsupported statements are not credited.”
See: DOJ ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, Sec. II-3.6100
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (Summary Judgment):
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by…citing to particular parts of materials in the record…or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.”
See: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
Professional Standards and Best Practices
National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) – Code of Conduct:
“Members must ensure that all factual representations and legal arguments are supported by evidence and are not misleading, speculative, or conclusory.”
See: NADR Code of Conduct
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.3:
“A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
Referral for Standards Review
In light of these requirements, I request that this addendum and the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) or a similar professional standards body for review. The purpose is to ensure that all statements made in the position paper meet the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and professional codes.
Thomas D. Coates, Claimant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
DOJ ADA Complaint No.: 536785-LFD | DOL WHD Matter: [Pending]
I submit this cover letter with humility and respect for the process, fully aware that no single document can capture the weight of lived experience or the impact of institutional neglect. Yet, it is my hope that what follows will serve as both a record and a call to conscience—a demonstration that, even when procedures falter, the truth can and will be brought to bear. This letter precedes a comprehensive legal submission with multiple attachments and exhibits. The accompanying main document presents a full evidentiary record and detailed legal argument, organized for immediate review by the EEOC, cross-agency partners, and potential legal and advocacy representatives.
The evidence and documentation provided are not simply procedural—they are deeply personal. They reflect years of perseverance, repeated attempts to seek redress through every available channel, and the lived consequences of institutional inaction. This submission is designed to make the scope and seriousness of these violations unmistakable, and to ensure that every reviewer—whether legal, regulatory, or public—can see not only the harm but the imperative for remedy.
Each exhibit is referenced in the main body and indexed for immediate review. The cumulative effect is not only to prove the violations but to make denial impossible. This is a record designed to command attention, demand justice, and withstand scrutiny from any forum—legal, regulatory, or public.
This motion and its annexes 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.
Back to Table of ContentsThis 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 Claimant 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.
Back to Table of ContentsThis motion is submitted pursuant to:
The Claimant respectfully requests that the EEOC and cross-agency recipients:
# | Infraction | Individuals/Principals | Records & Systems | Forensic Data/Discovery Actions | Testimony/Demand |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Unsigned, Unverified Submission (29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(c)) | Justin Miles (Outside Counsel), Kia Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), Lakita Gaines (HR Lead) | Final position statement file; Submission logs (EEOC portal, email); Internal approval emails | Extract digital signature metadata Pull all email chains approving submission Identify all contributors and reviewers in document properties Preserve all drafts and transmission records | Demand sworn affidavit from Justin Miles and Kia Painter attesting to authorship, review, and certification of all factual assertions. |
2 | Absence of Sworn Declarations | Kia Painter, Lakita Gaines, Inelyz Martinez, Donte Holmes | HR case files; Internal investigation notes; List of all managers/decision-makers referenced | Identify all factual claims lacking sworn support Extract HR case file sign-off logs Pull all internal emails referencing “affidavit” or “declaration” List all witnesses for subpoena | Demand sworn declarations from each named principal for every material assertion made. |
3 | Verbal Conversation Claims Unsubstantiated | HR Manager (assigned), Kia Painter, Donte Holmes | Phone logs, call records (VOIP, Teams/Zoom), Email follow-ups, HRIS notes | Subpoena call logs for all dates referenced Extract Teams/Zoom/Slack call records Forensically review HRIS notes for edits/creation dates Demand production of all contemporaneous documentation | Each HR principal must provide a sworn statement with date/time, attendees, and substance of every referenced conversation. |
4 | Contradictory Payroll Statements | Payroll Administrator, MetLife Coordinator, Ursula Rogers | Payroll system logs (Workday, ADP), Paystubs, IRS filings, MetLife STD claim records | Pull all paystubs and payroll logs for relevant periods Compare payroll to MetLife claim periods Extract IRS/SSA reporting for same intervals Forensically analyze “Stay Pay” entries and zeroed-out pay | Sworn payroll administrator and MetLife coordinator testimony on all entries, discrepancies, and reporting. |
5 | Fabricated Access/Return Narrative | Jennifer Melton, Inelyz Martinez | Physician RTW letters, ADA accommodation forms, HRIS access logs | Extract and compare all RTW documentation Audit HRIS access block/restore records Subpoena physician communications | Testimony from HR and medical contacts on RTW instructions, access restoration, and timeline. |
6 | Improper Footnotes to Disclaim Responsibility | Justin Miles (author), Cox Legal Team | Drafts of position statement, Email chains about footnotes, Internal legal review notes | Demand production of all drafts and revision history Identify all contributors to disclaimers Subpoena legal team for rationale behind disclaimers | Sworn affidavit from each legal drafter as to accuracy and intent of disclaimers. |
7 | Misrepresentation of Performance Records | Donte Holmes, Scorecard Administrator, Performance Coach | Scorecard logs, Performance review emails, Accommodation request records | Pull all performance review drafts and final versions Audit for edits after accommodation requests Compare timeline to ADA/FMLA requests | Sworn testimony from all reviewers on content, timing, and knowledge of accommodations. |
8 | Disregard of Disability Status in Harassment Claims | Supervisors, HR Compliance, Jennifer Melton | Medical records, Email notifications, HR complaint logs | Extract all emails referencing disability or ADA Audit HR complaint system for entries and responses Subpoena supervisors for knowledge and response | Testimony from all involved on knowledge of disability and steps taken. |
9 | Absence of Internal Investigation or Documentation | Lakita Gaines, Internal HR Compliance Officer, Ursula Rogers | Internal investigation files, Interview notes, HRIS audit logs | Demand all investigation notes and logs Subpoena all interview participants Forensically review HRIS for undeclared edits | Sworn affidavits from all compliance officers regarding investigation scope and findings. |
10 | Improper Grouping of EEOC Matters | Alexander Perez (EEOC), Cox Legal Team | EEOC charge files, Internal legal memos, Correspondence with EEOC | Pull all correspondence regarding charge grouping Audit EEOC and Cox records for consolidation discussions Identify all legal team members involved | Sworn testimony from Perez and Cox legal on rationale, process, and due process compliance. |
Failure to comply will be memorialized as non-response, subject to adverse inference, sanctions, and referral for further agency or judicial action. This memorialization is ongoing and encompasses all conduct, statements, and evidence relevant to these proceedings, not limited to the position statement alone.
The following individuals are hereby formally memorialized as principals, agents, or respondents for all purposes of this record. Each has, at various times and in various forms:
Each individual named below is subject to:
Failure to comply will be memorialized as non-response, subject to adverse inference, sanctions, and referral for further agency or judicial action. This memorialization is ongoing and encompasses all conduct, statements, and evidence relev
Preservation and Legal Notification:
This event 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 obligation to preserve all related payroll, system, and correspondence records for independent review and audit. Any attempt to “amend,” disclaim, or distance from these actions will not defeat the integrity of the preserved record, as the evidentiary chain is independently corroborated by system logs, emails, and contemporaneous documentation.
On June 28, 2024, Thomas D. Coates requested a confidential meeting with his manager, Azariah Workman, to discuss emergent medical concerns related to exacerbated cardiac symptoms and acute stress resulting from his son’s illness. This request was made with the expectation of confidentiality, consistent with ADA mandates that protect medical disclosures.
Despite the private 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 legitimate 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 suspended Coates’s pay, a decision also reflected in PeopleSoft and Workday audit logs. No additional medical information had been submitted to justify this modification, 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 remunerated again for nearly 30 days, despite repeated efforts to resolve the issue with HR, supervisors, and internal support systems.
What Should Have Occurred | What Actually Occurred |
---|---|
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. | A confidential medical disclosure was made in a compromised environment. |
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. | A verbal accommodation (2 days of paid medical leave) was given but reversed within hours via a payroll intervention. |
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. | Pay was cut off immediately following the disclosure of a disability-related health crisis. |
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 negative evaluation was initiated while the employee was under medical distress and after invoking ADA and FMLA protections. |
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. |
This timeline meticulously chronicles a persistent pattern of misconduct and alleged actions, detailing specific events and communications that unequivocally demonstrate a profound disregard for the Complainant's rights and a manifest absence of good faith.
Proof: Contemporaneous email/text correspondence and Workday logs.
Proof: Workday system logs.
Proof: Email/ticket submitted to HR.
Proof: HR ticket logs and email chains.
Proof: Email chains, HR ticket logs, and screenshots.
Proof: Workman’s own system logs.
Proof: Documented correspondence.
Proof: Email correspondence.
Proof: Comparison of Workman’s statements versus Complainant’s documented record.
Proof: Complainant’s detailed documentation.
Proof: Correspondence and payroll records.
This singular incident should be formally memorialized and transmitted to:
MetLife Disability File / Complainant's Record | Cox Position Statement Claim | Contradiction / Legal Basis |
---|---|---|
Your disability claim was received on May 28, 2024 and approved for the period June 3, 2024 through July 1, 2024. (MetLife Letter, June 3, 2024) | No leave or accommodation was requested for absences in June 2024. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.2) | Contradicts assertion of no request. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
Employer contact: HR was notified of your claim on May 29, 2024. (MetLife File, May 29, 2024) | Unaware of any disability claim or need for accommodation prior to disciplinary action. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.3) | Contradicts claim of lack of notice. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Medical documentation received and accepted June 2, 2024. (MetLife File, June 2, 2024) | No medical documentation was ever provided to support absences. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.4) | Contradicts assertion. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) |
Approved for Short-Term Disability (STD) benefits for June 3 - July 1, 2024. (MetLife Letter, June 3, 2024) | Absent without leave and subject to corrective action for the same period. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.5) | Contradicts payroll/discipline records. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220 |
Employer failed to respond to MetLife's request for additional information on June 5, 2024. (MetLife File, June 5, 2024) | Fully cooperated with all disability claims and requests. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.6) | Demonstrates lack of cooperation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Claim approved based on medical necessity and documentation provided. (MetLife Letter, June 3, 2024) | No documentation was ever provided. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.4) | Contradicts claim. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Disability claim covers all absences from June 3, 2024 through July 1, 2024. (MetLife File, July 1, 2024) | Absences in June were unexcused and subject to corrective action. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.5) | Contradicts basis for discipline. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) |
Return-to-work date set for July 2, 2024. (MetLife Letter, July 1, 2024) | No expected return-to-work date communicated. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.6) | Contradicts claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Employee notified of right to appeal any denial or reduction in benefits. (MetLife Letter, July 1, 2024) | No rights or benefits denied. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.7) | Contradicts assertion. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300 |
Employer failed to provide requested payroll information to MetLife. (MetLife File, June 10, 2024) | All necessary payroll and employment information provided. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.8) | Contradicts claim. 29 C.F.R. § 825.500 |
STD benefit payments issued for June 3 - July 1, 2024. (MetLife File, July 1, 2024) | Not entitled to any paid leave or disability benefits. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.9) | Contradicts payroll records. 29 C.F.R. § 825.215 |
Employer delayed response to MetLife's request for employment verification. (MetLife File, June 10, 2024) | Responded promptly to all requests. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.10) | Contradicts MetLife's record. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(b) |
Claim file includes all medical and employment documentation required. (MetLife File, July 1, 2024) | No documentation was ever received. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, p.11) | Contradicts claim. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c) |
MetLife notified employer of employee's protected status under ADA and FMLA. (MetLife File, June 3, 2024) | Unaware of any protected status or need for accommodation. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.12) | Contradicts assertion. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Employee engaged in protected activity by filing a disability claim. (MetLife File, May 28, 2024) | No protected activity occurred prior to corrective action. (Position Statement, April 11, 2025, р.13) | Contradicts timeline. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12 |
MetLife confirmed receipt of updated medical restrictions on October 22, 2024. Approved included phased return and remote work. (Exhibit J) | Cox did not receive any updated restrictions after the initial documentation. (SOP, p.29). Mr. Coates rejected all accommodations. (SOP, p.12) | Contradicts interactive process obligations. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) Misrepresents acceptance. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
Employee medically cleared to return with restrictions Nov. 21, 2024. | Mr. Coates never communicated readiness to return. (SOP, p.31) | False claim regarding communication. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9(d) |
Employer failed to respond to multiple coordination requests from MetLife. | Cox collaborated fully with MetLife. | Evidence of non-cooperation. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(c)(1) |
Pay inconsistencies noted and reported to MetLife. | All pay records were accurate and verified. | Contradiction over payroll truthfulness. 29 C.F.R. § 825.500(g) |
Leave approved through July 1, 2024, and again through Nov. 20, 2024. | Leave was never officially approved for those dates. | Contradicts documentation and payments. 29 C.F.R. § 825.216(a) |
Medical release submitted for Nov. 21, 2024 RTW. | Mr. Coates failed to submit timely RTW letter. (SOP, p.30) | Documented submission exists. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) |
No indication of voluntary resignation. | Employee voluntarily resigned by failing to return. | Misrepresents ADA/family leave protections. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(b) |
Employee status changed prior to appeal period expiration. | All employee rights and appeal periods were honored. | Due process breach. 29 C.F.R. § 825.300(d)(1) |
System notes reflect delay in pay processing after June 28. | No delay in pay noted in system. | Evidence conflict, possible wage violation. 29 C.F.R. § 541.602(a) |
Workday logs show adjustments made retroactively. | No retroactive changes occurred. | Log audit discrepancy. 29 C.F.R. § 516.6(a)(1) |
Employer instructed MetLife to pause STD case review. | Cox had no role in STD decision-making. | Undermines impartiality. 29 C.F.R. § 825.308(b)(2) |
Benefit enrollment prevented due to HR inaction. | Employee failed to enroll despite assistance. | Obstructive practices. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(a)(2) |
MetLife notified Cox of ADA coverage status. | Cox unaware of ADA-qualified condition. | Constructive notice ignored. 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4) |
System logs show benefit eligibility review delayed by Cox. | No delay occurred; employee failed to complete process. | Delay attributed incorrectly. 29 C.F.R. § 825.301(a) |
Internal logs show repeated employee inquiries. | Mr. Coates made no attempt to contact HR after 7/1/24. | Misrepresentation of engagement. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(c) |
Short-term disability approval not reversed until August. | Mr. Coates was denied benefits in early July. | Contradictory benefit timing. 29 C.F.R. § 825.212(b) |
Cox provided MetLife incorrect payroll data. | All payroll data was accurate and verified. | Contradiction. FLSA: 29 U.S.C. § 211(c) |
Interactive process began July 2024. | Interactive process began in October. | Delayed engagement violates law. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Case documented as 'medical leave' on July 1 in Workday. | July 1 was unauthorized absence. | Misclassification. 29 C.F.R. § 825.302(d) |
No disciplinary action should occur while on STD. | Corrective action issued June 27 despite STD application. | Interference with leave rights. 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) |
Physician documentation received and logged. | No valid medical documentation ever submitted. | Direct contradiction. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.14(c) |
Accommodation request formally submitted Oct. 22. | Employee delayed request. | Fabricated delay. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.9 |
Pay halted June 28 with no written justification. | Employee resigned or did not return. | Payroll discontinuation as retaliation. FLSA § 206 |
MetLife confirmed disability due to cardiac condition. | No known disability confirmed. | Ignoring diagnosed condition. 42 U.S.C. § 12102(1)(A) |
System flagged conflicting evaluations after leave discussion. | Evaluations unrelated to medical status. | Temporal retaliation. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.12(a) |
Workday shows HR entries altered post-meeting on June 28. | No retroactive changes were made. | System alteration implicates retaliation. 29 C.F.R. § 825.500 |
Employee requested updated job functions. | Mr. Coates never inquired about duties. | Denial of interactive engagement. 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(0)(3) |
Final paycheck inconsistencies reported but not addressed. | All pay was correct. | Pay inquiry neglect. FLSA § 207(e) |
Disability claim upheld despite Cox's lack of cooperation. | Cox fully cooperated. | Discrepancy noted by third party. 29 C.F.R. § 825.307(b) |
These significant contradictions serve as compelling evidence of record falsification, a demonstrable failure to provide reasonable accommodation, interference with Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) rights, and potential violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accessibility Act (HIPAA). Their memorialization is imperative, as they represent material admissions subject to both cross-agency audit and enforcement actions.
I hereby notify the District Office and all oversight agencies that, in the coming days, I will be submitting a comprehensive series of motions and evidentiary addenda. These will include, but are not limited to:
This evidence is crucial to the fair adjudication of this matter and must be reviewed by an impartial and procedurally compliant investigator.
This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.
In light of these standards, the Claimant respectfully requests that the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR), the American Bar Association (ABA) Professional Responsibility Committee, or a similar professional standards body for independent review. The purpose is to determine whether the statement meets the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and agency practice.
Back to Table of ContentsComplainant | Thomas D. Coates |
---|---|
Respondent(s) | Cox Communications, Inc., Keith Wilson, Jennifer Melton |
Jurisdiction | EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001 U.S. District Court (Potential Claim) Federal Labor Relations Authority (Unfair Labor Practice Implicated) US Merit system protection act (if US military employed with Cox) |
Date | Event/Action | Evidence Ref. |
---|---|---|
07/19/2024 | Complainant is told that his job may not be held if you took too much time. | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
12/30/2024 | "Unpaid leave of absence was approved through December 29, 2024. You were provided with clear instructions regarding the expectation that you return to work on December 30, 2024. You failed to do so.", | emails from Jennifer Melton on December 9, 2024 and December 31, 2024, and from me on January 1, 2024, Keith Wilson letter Exhibit 6A |
01/02/2025 | Clear instructions to return to work on Thursday, January 2nd, 2025. Unfortunately, you did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation.", Keith Wilson letter, email Ex 6A | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
01/03/2025 | Voluntary resignation" Ex6A letter, email Exhibit 6A | https://erniewood.neocities.org/NOW.html/0000000000adaformcoa07192024 |
01/03/2025 | I will immediately fix it and present the full text directly on screen from now on, or I will provide HTML copyable code, never an image or an inaccessible format unless you explicitly ask for it. Ex 6A letter, email Exhibit 6A Let’s correct it right now. Here’s the full scaffolded, formal, detailed report based on your "Formal Demand for Remediation" email — laid out properly in clear, structured text directly here: | Ex 6B |
Statute/Regulation | Description | Policy Guidance |
---|---|---|
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) | Failure to engage in a good faith interactive process to find reasonable accommodation and the doctor stated to do so. | EEOC Enforcement Guidance on Reasonable Accommodation and Undue Hardship |
ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12203 | Retaliation for requesting ADA accommodation | EEOC Compliance Manual Section 8: Retaliation |
FMLA, 29 U.S.C. § 2615(a)(2) | FMLA violation. | 29 C.F.R. § 825.220(c) |
USERRA, 38 U.S.C. § 4311 | If US military, it is a violation of veteran rights. | U.S. Department of Labor Vets Guide |
Assertion/Statement | Source | Contradictory Evidence | Implication |
---|---|---|---|
"Your failure to return to work constitutes a voluntary resignation under Cox’s Unpaid Leave of Absence policy." | Keith Wilson letter Ex 6A | Did not have a clear conversation but continued to try and submit evidence. | It was a denial of reasonable action. |
"As outlined in our previous communications (including, but not limited to, emails from Jennifer Melton on December 9, 2024 and December 31, 2024, and from me on January 1, 2024), your unpaid leave of absence was approved through December 29, 2024. You were provided with clear instructions regarding the expectation that you return to work on December 30, 2024. You failed to do so. You were then provided clear instructions to return to work on Thursday, January 2nd, 2025. Unfortunately, you did not report to work as scheduled, nor did you provide the required return-to-work release documentation." | Ex 6A | He wanted to submit documentation but was not being provided an opportunity. | His rights were being circumvented by a passive aggressive process. |
Policy Requirement | What Should Have Happened | Actual Action | Deviation |
---|---|---|---|
ADA compliance from Cox Communication | Cox Communication was suppose to engage in good faith interactive process to find reasonable accommodation. | But was met with a wall of paperwork. | The company and individual was not engaging in good faith |
Not retaliating against a complainant. | The company was suppose to acknowledge his complaint and take steps to ensure what happened to him would not happen to others | There was a denial of reasonable action, while also being retaliated against. | A violation. |
Name | Title/Role | Involvement |
---|---|---|
Keith Wilson | VP, Employee Experience & Compliance | Sent separation letter Ex 6A |
Jennifer Melton | CCI-Atlanta Ex 6A | Email chain Ex 6A |
Kia Painter | Senior VP of Operations | Not responding and therefore complicit |
Date | Filing/Agency | Case/Reference | Status/Outcome |
---|---|---|---|
Ongoing | This complaint | EEOC Case No. 12K-2025-00001 | There appears to be non compliance |
29. NERC found that Defendant "requiring [Anderson] to apply for positions she was qualified for, only to deny her application with little to no regard of accommodating the lifting requirement in her current positions that was not listed as an essential duty/requirement was a failed accommodation attempt." Id. ", (Anderson Case) | Federal litigation involving | Sony Music v. Cox and https://casetext.com/case/nerc-v-anderson | Pattern of violations |
Date: [Insert Date]
To: [EEOC Investigator, HR, or relevant recipient]
From: Thomas Coates
Subject: Addendum – Memorialization and Challenge of Unsupported Statements
Purpose
This addendum memorializes and formally challenges 48 specific statements made in Cox’s April 2025 Position Statement that lack direct documentary support, legal anchoring, or are unsupported rationalizations. Each statement is referenced by page number. For each, I demand supporting documentation and/or a sworn affidavit. Where such substantiation cannot be produced, I respectfully request the statement be stricken from the record and that an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for making unsupported factual claims.
# | Assertion (summary) | Page | Challenge & Demand |
---|---|---|---|
1 | Claims are speculative and irrelevant overall | 1 | Demand: Produce supporting documentation or affidavit. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
2 | Cox provided “extensive” accommodations to Coates | 2 | Demand: Identify and produce all records or communications evidencing “extensive” accommodations. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
3 | Only denied accommodations outside company control | 2 | Demand: Produce documentation showing which accommodations were denied and why they were outside company control. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
4 | Refusal to return equaled voluntary resignation | 2 | Demand: Produce resignation letter or contemporaneous record of voluntary resignation. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
48 | Anti-retaliation policy compliance claimed without audits | 3 | Demand: Provide documentation of anti-retaliation policy audits or compliance reviews. If not, statement should be stricken and adverse inference applied. |
Legal Basis
The EEOC and courts require factual assertions in position statements to be supported by evidence (affidavits, business records, or documentation). Unsupported or speculative statements are improper and should not be considered. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c) and EEOC guidance on position statements.
Requested Relief
That each identified unsupported statement be stricken from the record unless Cox can provide admissible evidence or a sworn affidavit substantiating the claim.
That the record reflect these statements as unsubstantiated and improper.
That an adverse inference be drawn against Cox for any statement made without a good faith evidentiary basis.
That this addendum be attached to and considered part of the official record in this matter.
Conclusion
I reserve the right to supplement this addendum as further unsupported statements are identified. I respectfully request prompt action on this matter to preserve the integrity of the record.
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas Coates
June 5, 2025
This addendum expressly incorporates not only the Cox April 2025 position statement but also all related factual assertions, representations, and communications made by Cox’s principals, executives, and HR personnel in any form, including:
The record shows that multiple Cox executives and compliance officers, including Ms. Painter (Chief Compliance Officer), were copied on critical correspondence and were fully aware of the ongoing retaliation and ADA/EEO violations as early as July 2024. These leaders had both a statutory and fiduciary duty to intervene, investigate, and remediate upon receiving evidence of discrimination or a formal EEO/ADA request for help. Their inaction directly enabled the ongoing harm, and their silence constitutes a breach of duty under federal and state law.
The failure of Cox’s highest compliance officer to act on clear evidence of retaliation and ADA violations is itself a violation of law and policy, and raises serious questions about systemic compliance failures at Cox. This pattern is not isolated. If the Chief Compliance Officer and other executives can “turn a blind eye” to such clear-cut evidence, it signals a broader culture of noncompliance and exposes the company to enhanced scrutiny and cross-agency enforcement. This addendum is intended to serve as a model for escalation in all similar Cox cases, and to notify oversight agencies that these failures are not happening in a vacuum.
Each addendum submitted herein is intended to have independent legal force and effect, and should be considered, adjudicated, and preserved in the record regardless of the disposition of the main motion. The facts, legal arguments, and relief requested in this addendum are severable and should be ruled upon independently as necessary to ensure a full and fair adjudication of all issues presented.
The EEOC and all oversight agencies are specifically notified that the scope of this motion and all addenda includes the full web of communications, not just the position statement. Any attempt to “fix” or disclaim a single link in the chain will not defeat the evidentiary record, as the intertwined communications and executive knowledge establish ongoing, systemic violations and fiduciary breaches.
Introduction:
This addendum is submitted in accordance with the requirements of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), federal law, and recognized standards of legal practice. The following statutes, regulations, and agency guidance mandate that all factual statements, legal arguments, and position statements submitted in administrative and judicial proceedings must be accurate, succinct, and supported by evidence. Unsupported assertions, speculation, or mischaracterizations are improper and should be stricken or disregarded.
EEOC Standards and Guidance
EEOC Quality Practices for Effective Position Statements:
“A position statement should be clear, concise, complete, and responsive to the allegations. It should provide specific, factual information, including documentation where possible, and avoid unsupported generalizations or conclusory statements.”
Source: EEOC Respondent Position Statement Guidelines
EEOC Enforcement Guidance (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15):
“Each party shall have the right to submit statements and evidence. The Commission shall accord substantial weight to documentary evidence and sworn statements, and shall disregard unsupported allegations.”
EEOC Federal Sector Management Directive 110 (MD-110):
“All factual assertions should be supported by documentary evidence or sworn testimony. Investigators and fact-finders must disregard statements that are not supported by evidence.”
Other Federal Agency Standards
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL):
“All findings of fact must be supported by substantial evidence. Unsupported assertions or conclusions are insufficient.”
See: 5 U.S.C. § 556(d) (Administrative Procedure Act)
U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) ADA Investigations:
“Each claim must be supported by evidence, including affidavits, records, or other documentation. Unsupported statements are not credited.”
See: DOJ ADA Title II Technical Assistance Manual, Sec. II-3.6100
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 56 (Summary Judgment):
“A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the assertion by…citing to particular parts of materials in the record…or showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a genuine dispute.”
See: Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)
Professional Standards and Best Practices
National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) – Code of Conduct:
“Members must ensure that all factual representations and legal arguments are supported by evidence and are not misleading, speculative, or conclusory.”
See: NADR Code of Conduct
American Bar Association (ABA) Model Rule 3.3:
“A lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer.”
Referral for Standards Review
In light of these requirements, I request that this addendum and the Cox April 2025 Position Statement be referred to the National Association of Disability Representatives (NADR) or a similar professional standards body for review. The purpose is to ensure that all statements made in the position paper meet the standards of accuracy, evidentiary support, and professional responsibility required by federal law and professional codes.