To the EEOC and all reviewing authorities:
This is a formal demand, grounded in law and precedent, that the two distinct EEOC matters-Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 (filed 10-24-2024, pre-termination) and Inquiry No. 437-2025-01209 (filed 04-02-2025, post-termination)-remain separate and be independently and thoroughly investigated. Any attempt to consolidate or summarily dismiss these distinct charges would violate both the letter and spirit of the ADA, Title VII, and EEOC’s own enforcement mandates.
Statute: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.12; 42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)
The first charge concerns events prior to termination (failure to accommodate, ongoing retaliation).
The second charge arises after termination (wrongful discharge, continuing retaliation).
Each event triggers separate statutory deadlines and legal standards; combining them risks procedural default and loss of rights.
Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28
Each charge preserves different remedies (reinstatement, back pay, front pay, injunctive relief).
Consolidation could extinguish or limit remedies for the later-occurring wrongful termination, violating Congressional intent.
Statute: National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101 (2002)
The Supreme Court requires each discrete act of discrimination or retaliation to be independently investigated and charged.
Pre-termination retaliation and post-termination wrongful discharge are separate “discrete acts.”
Statute: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.19; 42 U.S.C. § 12203
Employers often seek to “bootstrap” later acts (like firing) onto earlier charges to avoid scrutiny.
Keeping charges separate prevents the employer from using a summary judgment on one to dismiss the other.
Statute: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 8
Each charge provides distinct notice to the employer and triggers different defenses and obligations.
Combining them prejudices the charging party’s right to fair process and full disclosure.
Statute: EEOC Compliance Manual, Section 8; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-3(a)
The EEOC is required to address continuing retaliation, which may evolve after the initial charge.
The second charge is an “open matter” with ongoing facts and should not be prejudiced by prior proceedings.
Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(f)(1); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.28
Each charge must be fully processed to preserve the right to a Notice of Right to Sue on each distinct claim.
Premature consolidation could forfeit the right to federal court review on the second, open matter.
Statute: 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-6; 29 C.F.R. § 1601.7
Separate investigation allows the EEOC to uncover broader patterns of discrimination and retaliation, as seen in McLendon v. Cox and similar cases.
The public interest demands that each form of employer misconduct be independently scrutinized to deter future violations.
The EEOC’s mission is not served by consolidation or summary disposition.
Each charge-pre-termination and post-termination-deserves the full weight of the Commission’s investigative and enforcement powers. To do otherwise would embolden employers to “wait out” charges, then retaliate further, knowing later acts will be swept under the rug.
I invoke all statutory rights, agency precedent, and the public interest in robust civil rights enforcement to demand:
Separate, thorough investigation of each charge;
Preservation of all remedies and rights;
Expansion of the investigation to include pattern-or-practice review;
Immediate notice to all parties that consolidation or summary judgment is improper and unlawful under the above-cited authorities.
Respectfully submitted,
Based on the attached court document (McLendon v. Cox Communications, ADA/retaliation complaint), here are eight concrete ways Cox has used the same strategies now seen in your position paper, with reasons these justify expanding the EEOC investigation and highlighting classic areas of EEOC strength:
Example from Complaint:
Cox repeatedly failed to respond to Mr. McLendon’s ongoing requests for reasonable accommodation, even after multiple doctor’s notes and HR involvement (¶¶ 25–35, 44–49, 55–57).
Why Expand Investigation:
A pattern of ignoring or delaying responses to protected activity is a classic sign of retaliation and bad faith, warranting a deeper probe into company-wide practices and whether this is a systemic issue.
Example from Complaint:
After a change in supervisors, Cox retroactively “wrote up” Mr. McLendon for using accommodations previously approved by HR and his former supervisor (¶¶ 50–64).
Why Expand Investigation:
Retroactive discipline for previously approved accommodations is a textbook sign of pretext and retaliation, a key focus area for EEOC enforcement.
Example from Complaint:
Mr. McLendon’s accommodations were granted by one supervisor but denied by another, despite ongoing medical documentation and HR approval (¶¶ 48–54, 67).
Why Expand Investigation:
Inconsistent application of policies suggests either lack of training or intentional discrimination; the EEOC often investigates whether such inconsistency is a pattern affecting other employees.
Example from Complaint:
Even after HR reaffirmed the accommodation, Cox refused to remove the retroactive write-ups from Mr. McLendon’s record (¶¶ 68–71).
Why Expand Investigation:
Maintaining tainted disciplinary records is a form of ongoing retaliation and can chill protected activity; the EEOC regularly seeks to uncover if this is a broader practice.
Example from Complaint:
Cox used the retroactive write-ups as the basis to terminate Mr. McLendon, despite his protected status and ongoing objections (¶¶ 75–80).
Why Expand Investigation:
Terminating an employee based on discipline linked to protected activity is a classic EEOC “smoking gun” and often leads to expanded investigation for pattern/practice violations.