MEMORIALIZATION AND CROSS-AGENCY ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE RECORD MEMORIALIZATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY STRUCTURE

This section establishes the comprehensive framework for memorializing all statements, assertions, and representations made by Cox Communications, its principals, executives, agents, and counsel in this matter. It further establishes the cross-agency accountability structure, identifies and preemptively addresses potential evasion tactics, and sets forth the consequences of non-compliance with the demands for sworn verification and substantiation contained herein.

I. COMPREHENSIVE MEMORIALIZATION OF ALL STATEMENTS AND REPRESENTATIONS

The following are hereby formally memorialized as part of the permanent administrative and judicial record:

II. IDENTIFIED EVASION TACTICS AND PREEMPTIVE COUNTERMEASURES

The following are six common evasion tactics that respondents may attempt to employ to avoid accountability, along with the preemptive countermeasures that are hereby established:

Evasion Tactic #1: "The position statement was prepared by outside counsel without our knowledge or approval."
Countermeasure: Under agency law and professional responsibility rules, counsel's representations bind the client. Cox Communications is deemed to have reviewed, approved, and adopted all statements made on its behalf. Further, the position statement was necessarily based on information, documents, and representations provided by Cox personnel. Each principal who provided information for the position statement must provide a sworn affidavit regarding the accuracy and completeness of the information they provided.
Evasion Tactic #2: "We withdraw/disavow the position statement and will submit a new one."
Countermeasure: The original position statement is permanently memorialized and cannot be withdrawn, retracted, or replaced. Any subsequent "correction" or "clarification" will be treated as an admission that the original statement contained false or misleading information. Further, the intertwined evidentiary chain means that system records, emails, and other communications independently corroborate the violations at issue, making it impossible to "fix" the record through a single document withdrawal.
Evasion Tactic #3: "The individuals named had no personal knowledge or involvement."
Countermeasure: Each principal identified in this motion has been linked to specific emails, system actions, or communications that demonstrate their knowledge, involvement, or responsibility. Any claim of non-involvement must be made under oath and will be tested against the documentary record. Further, executives and compliance officers had a duty to know and intervene once notified of potential violations, making their claimed ignorance itself a breach of duty.
Evasion Tactic #4: "These are merely technical or procedural issues, not substantive violations."
Countermeasure: The pattern of procedural violations, false statements, and non-compliance constitutes substantive evidence of retaliation, bad faith, and systemic failures. Courts and agencies routinely recognize that procedural violations can themselves constitute evidence of discriminatory intent or retaliation. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973); Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 (2000).
Evasion Tactic #5: "The EEOC lacks jurisdiction over some of these claims."
Countermeasure: While certain claims may fall under the primary jurisdiction of other agencies (DOL, DOJ, etc.), the EEOC has a duty to preserve the complete record and refer matters to appropriate agencies under the EEOC-DOL-DOJ MOU (2018, revised 2022). Further, evidence of payroll manipulation, FMLA interference, or other violations is directly relevant to the pattern of retaliation and discrimination at issue in this EEOC charge. The cross-agency mirroring of this motion ensures that all claims will be reviewed by the appropriate oversight bodies regardless of any jurisdictional determination by the EEOC.
Evasion Tactic #6: "We need more time to investigate these allegations."
Countermeasure: Cox has had ample time to investigate and respond to these issues, many of which were raised directly with executives and HR as early as June 2024 (see EthicsPoint Claim #630441559501). Any request for additional time must be accompanied by a sworn statement explaining why Cox failed to investigate earlier, what steps have been taken to date, and what specific additional investigation is needed. Further, any extension must be conditioned on the immediate production of all documents and records already in Cox's possession.
III. CROSS-AGENCY ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTING STRUCTURE

This motion and all related filings are being transmitted to the following agencies and oversight bodies to ensure comprehensive review and accountability:

IV. GOVERNMENT CONTRACTOR COMPLIANCE AND ETHICAL STANDARDS

As a government contractor at both the federal and state levels, Cox Communications is subject to heightened compliance and ethical standards, including:

Violations of these standards can result in: