Memorialization of Executive and Principal Responsibility

MEMORIALIZATION OF EXECUTIVE AND PRINCIPAL RESPONSIBILITY

NOTICE: The following facts, statements, and communications are hereby formally memorialized as part of the permanent administrative and judicial record. They constitute prima facie violations of the ADA, FMLA, and other federal statutes, and are directly attributable to the principals, executives, and compliance officers of Cox Communications who authored, reviewed, or had knowledge of the April 2025 Position Statement, as well as all related emails, system notes, and internal communications before and after that period.

Personal Responsibility: All Cox executives and HR personnel—including Ms. Jennifer Melton, Ms. Kia Painter, and other named principals—are individually responsible for the accuracy and truthfulness of the statements made in the position statement, subsequent emails, and system notes. Their knowledge and inaction constitute a breach of both statutory and fiduciary duties under 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b), 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c), and EEOC Enforcement Guidance.
Chain of Evidence: The evidentiary chain is intentionally intertwined: Any attempt to “fix” or disclaim a single document (e.g., the position statement) will not defeat the integrity of the record, as other communications and system records independently corroborate the violations and inconsistencies at issue.
Statutory and Professional Standards: 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. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), EEOC Quality Practices, ABA Model Rule 3.3.
Cross-Agency and Judicial Review: These facts are preserved for coordinated review by the EEOC, DOL, DOJ, Virginia OSIG, and any court of competent jurisdiction.

Introduction

This email exchange between Mr. Thomas Coates and Ms. Jennifer Melton of Cox Communications, dated between November 18 and November 26, 2024, centers on Cox’s handling of Mr. Coates’s return-to-work (RTW) process, accommodations under the ADA, short-term disability (STD) coordination, and benefit enrollment issues. The emails reveal a series of escalating requests and clarifications by Mr. Coates in response to Cox's last-minute documentation demands, contradictory information, and failure to coordinate essential communications with MetLife and the Employee Service Center (ESC). This thread directly contradicts multiple assertions made in Cox's April 2025 Statement of Position submitted to the EEOC.

Below are 10 contradictions and statutory violations identified between the Cox position statement and this email record:

Contradictions and Violations Table

#	Contradiction/Violation	Email Fact	Cox Statement	Statute/Regulation
1	Contradiction on Return-to-Work Date Coordination	“I have fulfilled all obligations and requirements under the return-to-work process to satisfy my legal obligations…” (Nov 20 email)	Cox claims Coates “failed to return to work after the expiration of his leave without providing notice or explanation”.	29 CFR §1630.2(o)(3)
2	Inaccurate Claim of Employee's Refusal to Communicate	Multiple emails Nov 18–26 seeking updates, clarification, and confirming receipt.	“Mr. Coates refused to engage in any such communication.”	42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(4)
3	Conflict on Documentation Request Timeline	Cox demanded an updated RTW letter on Nov 20 for a Nov 21 return.	Cox’s policy requires documentation 72 hours before return.	EEOC Guidance (Unreasonable delay standard)
4	Contradiction on Open Enrollment Communications	Mr. Coates states he could not access the system and received no clear assistance.	Claimed it sent “three emails and calls” and that Mr. Coates was unresponsive.	29 CFR §1630.9
5	Misrepresentation of Accommodation Currency	Ms. Melton’s Nov 20 email admits accommodations were based on the Oct 22 provider letter. Mr. Coates had submitted new documentation on Nov 17.	“Cox approved nearly all of his revised accommodation requests”.	42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4)(A)
6	False Claim of System Notification	Mr. Coates refutes receiving any updated documentation requests through Workday.	“Workday sent the documentation request on 11/18.”	Pretext under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green
7	Contradiction on Caregiver Leave Request	Mr. Coates clearly refuted having submitted a caregiver leave request for his son (Nov 20 email).	Repeated this as justification for non-clearance for RTW.	ADA retaliation, 42 U.S.C. § 12203
8	Inconsistency on Coordination with MetLife	Mr. Coates writes that Cox failed to coordinate with MetLife regarding STD.	Cox claims it consistently “provided support” for MetLife coordination.	29 CFR §825.300(b)
9	Contradiction on Mediation Proposal and ADR Process	Mr. Coates formally requested ADR mediation in good faith (Nov 18).	Cox fails to mention or address this in their position, contradicting their claim of a commitment to “amicable dispute resolution.”	ADA Title I, EEOC informal resolution procedures
10	Retaliatory Timing of Pay Suspension	Mr. Coates notes his pay was cut off on Nov 21, the same day he was told to submit a new RTW letter.	Makes no mention of the timing or adverse action.	29 CFR §1630.12

Contradiction/Violation

Email Fact

Cox Statement

Statute/Regulation

Contradiction on Return-to-Work Date Coordination

“I have fulfilled all obligations and requirements under the return-to-work process to satisfy my legal obligations…” (Nov 20 email)

Cox claims Coates “failed to return to work after the expiration of his leave without providing notice or explanation”.

29 CFR §1630.2(o)(3)

Inaccurate Claim of Employee's Refusal to Communicate

Multiple emails Nov 18–26 seeking updates, clarification, and confirming receipt.

“Mr. Coates refused to engage in any such communication.”

42 U.S.C. §12112(b)(4)

Conflict on Documentation Request Timeline

Cox demanded an updated RTW letter on Nov 20 for a Nov 21 return.

Cox’s policy requires documentation 72 hours before return.

EEOC Guidance (Unreasonable delay standard)

Contradiction on Open Enrollment Communications

Mr. Coates states he could not access the system and received no clear assistance.

Claimed it sent “three emails and calls” and that Mr. Coates was unresponsive.

29 CFR §1630.9

Misrepresentation of Accommodation Currency

Ms. Melton’s Nov 20 email admits accommodations were based on the Oct 22 provider letter. Mr. Coates had submitted new documentation on Nov 17.

“Cox approved nearly all of his revised accommodation requests”.

42 U.S.C. §12112(d)(4)(A)

False Claim of System Notification

Mr. Coates refutes receiving any updated documentation requests through Workday.

“Workday sent the documentation request on 11/18.”

Pretext under McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green

Contradiction on Caregiver Leave Request

Mr. Coates clearly refuted having submitted a caregiver leave request for his son (Nov 20 email).

Repeated this as justification for non-clearance for RTW.

ADA retaliation, 42 U.S.C. § 12203

Inconsistency on Coordination with MetLife

Mr. Coates writes that Cox failed to coordinate with MetLife regarding STD.

Cox claims it consistently “provided support” for MetLife coordination.

29 CFR §825.300(b)

Contradiction on Mediation Proposal and ADR Process

Mr. Coates formally requested ADR mediation in good faith (Nov 18).

Cox fails to mention or address this in their position, contradicting their claim of a commitment to “amicable dispute resolution.”

ADA Title I, EEOC informal resolution procedures

Retaliatory Timing of Pay Suspension

Mr. Coates notes his pay was cut off on Nov 21, the same day he was told to submit a new RTW letter.

Makes no mention of the timing or adverse action.

29 CFR §1630.12

Conclusion and Relief Requested

Notice: This section is intended to satisfy the recordkeeping, disclosure, and transmission requirements of all referenced agencies and courts. All parties are requested to preserve, review, and incorporate this record in accordance with applicable law.

UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION

NORFOLK AREA OFFICE – MID-ATLANTIC REGION