Memorialized Contradictions: Cox False Claims vs. Protected Activity Evidence

NOTICE: The following table memorializes direct contradictions between Cox Communications’ position statement and contemporaneous, documented communications between Complainant and supervisor Donte Holmes regarding protected leave for a seriously ill dependent. These contradictions are entered into the permanent record and will be used to support a request for adverse inference, sanctions, and cross-agency referral for retaliation and perjury.

# Cox Position Statement Claim Direct Contradictory Evidence Legal/Procedural Violation Exposure/Remedy
1 “For the first time, he disclosed that his recent absences were allegedly due to caring for his ailing son...”
(Cox Position Statement, April 11, 2025)
2024-06-13 17:09 – Coates to Holmes: “Staying with sick son, unable to attend work”
2024-06-14 11:53 – Coates to Holmes: “Son recovering, cannot come in as planned”
2024-06-15 11:46 – Coates to Holmes: “Son’s Addison condition requires additional care time”
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(4) (ADA associational discrimination)
29 U.S.C. § 2615 (FMLA interference/retaliation)
Material perjury; adverse inference; triggers retaliation presumption.
2 “No protected activity prior to scorecard or discipline.” 2024-06-18 10:14 – Coates to Holmes: “Hospital delay, attending to son, attendance notified”
2024-06-19 09:51 – Coates to Holmes: “Seeking HR help for FMLA and payroll”
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a) (Title VII retaliation)
29 C.F.R. § 825.220 (FMLA protected activity)
Scorecard/warning issued after protected activity—prima facie retaliation.
3 “Coates failed to meet performance standards; absences were unexcused.” 2024-06-18 14:44 – Holmes to Coates: “7.25 occurrences, warning issued, final approaching”
2024-06-18 21:27 – Coates to Holmes: “No call no show dispute and explanation”
29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) (EEOC evidence rules)
29 U.S.C. § 2615 (FMLA interference)
Absence discipline issued despite notice of protected leave—retaliation and FMLA violation.
4 “Cox offered significant job-protected leave and accommodations.” 2024-06-19 09:51 – Coates to Holmes: “Seeking HR help for FMLA and payroll”
No evidence of HR follow-up or leave approval prior to discipline.
29 C.F.R. § 825.300 (FMLA notice requirement)
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) (ADA accommodation)
Failure to engage in interactive process or approve leave; procedural and substantive violation.
5 “Termination based solely on job abandonment; no link to protected activity.” 2024-06-13 to 2024-06-19 – Multiple emails documenting protected leave requests and explanations.
Disciplinary action and termination followed immediately after protected disclosures.
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) (pretext/retaliation)
42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
Temporal proximity and false narrative = classic pretext for retaliation.

Legal and Evidentiary Analysis

All evidence and contradictions above are hereby memorialized and submitted as part of the permanent record for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 and all cross-agency referrals.