VEC FOIA Legal Table
Individual / Role Email Correspondence Window Commission Decision Summary Alleged VEC / FOIA / ADA / Appellate Violations Relevant Case & FOIA IDs Notes / Follow-up Steps Remedial / Expedite Trigger Justification
Thomas D. Coates (claimant) 06/01/2024 – 12/31/2025 Commission Decision UI-145419-C finds that claimant’s appeal of the Decision of Deputy was timely filed, reverses AE, and holds claimant eligible for benefits from 12/15/24 to 12/28/24; notice mailed May 8, 2025 with 10-day finality and 30-day judicial review period. Appellate violations (non-implementation or contradiction of binding Commission reversal); FOIA process violations (comparing production with decision mandates); possible ADA/RA violations tied to hearing access and accommodation requests. UI-145419-C; UI-25009640; UI-25009642; Claim IDs 54377566, 3858978; FOIA 2025-F-15770 & 2025-F-15771; ACCREQ202411010001–202502150025; EXNOT, RECRET, AUDIT-LOG ranges Build full chronology: decision dates, payment history, staff admissions of non-implementation, overlapping accommodation and FOIA activity; crosswalk with Va. Code § 60.2-622 timing and FOIA 5-business-day response rules. Remand precedent under UI-145419-C triggers provisional benefit entitlement under administrative expediency doctrine, requiring payments while full Commission reversal implementation occurs.
. . . 



.




.
CLMT_PARTY_ID_DISPLAYCLMT_CONTACT_WINDOW_DT_RANGECOMM_REV_DECISION_SUMMARY_TXTISSUE_FLAG_MATRIX_VEC_FOIA_ADA_APPCASE_ROUTE_KEYS_UI_FOIA_LOGSREMAND_IMPL_ACTION_PLAN_NOTESEMAIL_DISCOVERY_SCOPE_RATIONALEREMEDIAL_EXPEDITE_TRIGGER_JUSTADMIN_LEVERAGE_POINT_KEYCLERK_CODING_NOTICE_AUDIT_NOTECOLUMN_SCHEMA_EXTENSION_NOTEEXHIBIT_PINPOINT_CITATIONSVIOLATION_CODE_MATRIX_PLAN`

If you want a slightly more human‑readable variant that still sounds “inside‑VEC,” here is an alternative set:

`		Claimant_Party_DisplayNameEmail_Correspondence_DateWindowCommissionRemand_Decision_ExcerptAlleged_VEC_FOIA_ADA_Violation_FlagsCaseIdentifier_Bundle_UI_FOIA_AuditRemand_Implementation_Chronology_NotesEmailScope_RepresentativeHistory_JustificationRemedial_ExpediteTrigger_JustificationAdmin_Legal_Leverage_PointClerk_Coding_Notice_Prejudice_CheckColumn_Design_FutureExpansion_NotesExhibit_PinpointCitation_PlaceholderViolation_CodeMatrix_FutureUse`

[1](https://www.vec.virginia.gov/appeals)
[2](https://www.vec.virginia.gov/freedom-information-act-foia-virginia-employment-commission)
[3](https://foiacouncil.dls.virginia.gov/ref/Email%20Use%20Access%20Retention%202023.html)
[4](https://foiacouncil.dls.virginia.gov/ref/Email%20Use%20Access%20Retention%202023.pdf)
[5](https://www.vec.virginia.gov/sites/default/files/documents/CommissionAppealsformfinal.pdf)
[6](https://virginiaworks.gov/foia/)
[7](https://www.fairfaxcounty.gov/circuit/sites/circuit/files/Assets/Documents/PDF/opinions/cl-2024-15674-naomi-caceres-v-vec-et-al.pdf)
[8](https://www.governor.virginia.gov/constituent-services/foia-requests/)
[9](https://www.vml.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf/FOIA_Guide_Local_Govt_Officials.pdf)
[10](https://department.va.gov/privacy/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2025/06/FY25ManagedServicesFOIAXpressAssessingPIA.pdf)
Thomas D. Coates (claimant)06/01/2024 12/31/2025Commission Decision UI145419C finds that œclaimant™s appeal of the Decision of Deputy was timely filed, reverses AE, and holds claimant eligible for benefits 12/15/2412/28/24; notice says mailed May 8, 2025 with 10day finality and 30day judicial review period.Appellate violations (nonimplementation or contradiction of binding Commission reversal); FOIA process violations (need to compare what was produced with what this decision requires to exist); possible ADA / RA violations tied to hearing access and accommodation requests (if Commissionlevel directives not implemented while you had active disabilitylinked barriers).UI145419C; UI25009640; UI25009642; Claim IDs 54377566, 3858978; FOIA 2025F15770 & 2025F15771; ACCREQ202411010001202502150025; EXNOT, RECRET, and AUDITLOG ranges you listed.Build a chronology that shows: (1) date of decision; (2) when/if weeks were paid; (3) when staff emails admit nonimplementation; (4) overlapping accommodation and FOIA activity. Crosswalk with Va. Code § 60.2622 timing and FOIA 5businessday response rules.Covers separation (June 2024), initial claim (JulyAug 2024), all deputy and AE decisions, Commission decisions dated AprilJune 2025, and FOIA/appeals escalation through at least the second half of 2025; oneyear lookback from first FOIA plus several months after last known decision is a reasonable capture window.Thomas D. Coates (claimant)“Remand precedent under UI-145419-C triggers provisional benefit entitlement under the doctrine of administrative expediency, requiring payments while full implementation of Commission reversal occurs.”“Anchor argument on timely filing of appeal vs. non-implementation lag, demonstrating actionable harm under Va. Code § 60.2-622 and 60.2-625.”Commission Decision UI‑145419‑C finds your appeal timely and reverses denial for 12/15/24–12/28/24; notice sets 10‑day finality and 30‑day judicial‑review period from May 8, 2025 mailing.Appellate violations; FOIA process issues; possible ADA/RA violations tied to access and accommodations.UI‑145419‑C; UI‑25009640; UI‑25009642; Claim IDs 54377566, 3858978; FOIA 2025‑F‑15770, 15771; ACCREQ, EXNOT, RECRET, AUDIT‑LOG ranges.Build full chronology from decision dates to payments and FOIA/ADA activity; cross‑walk with Va. Code § 60.2‑622 timelines.Identify any instance where the Clerk’s office coded your filing as something other than the appeal you intended, or failed to send required notices, then compare to the 10‑day finality and 30‑day judicial‑review windows under Va. Code § 60.2‑622 to show prejudice.​Add explicit “VEC violations,” “privacy,” “ADA,” “FOIA,” “appellate,” “first‑level,” and “Commission‑level” as separate boolean or coded columns once you finalize your legal theories for each actor, using the notes column as the narrative bridge.​For each row, plug in pinpoint record citations (Bates numbers, PDF page numbers, audit‑log IDs) so this table can be dropped into a pleading, EEOC/DOJ submission, or FOIA‑enforcement petition as an index to your exhibits.​If you want, the next step can be a CSV‑ready version of this table with standardized codes (e.g., “ADA‑RA‑DENIED,” “FOIA‑LATE,” “APP‑NONIMPLEMENTED”) so you can filter and sort by violation type across all individuals and filings.
David Jackson (Special Examiner)01/01/2025 12/31/2025Commission decision letter with June 7, 2025 circuitcourt appeal deadline for UI145419C, and separate June 5, 2025 letter in UI145039C asserting Commission jurisdiction ended 10 days after mailing of an April 1, 2025 decision and that no further appeal or reconsideration is allowed.Possible appellate violations (if he or staff treated the Commission as divested while later Commissionlevel directives in your favor were still unimplemented or contradicted); dueprocess / firstlevel vs. Commissionlevel conflict (if conflicting deadlines or case numbers were used to block access to judicial review).UI145419C; UI145039C; referenced appeal and judicialreview windows under Va. Code §§ 60.2622 and 60.2625.Compare all decision letters™ mailing dates and deadline language to the statute and VEC™s own published appeals guidance to show inconsistency or misdirection; flag any misstatement of finality that could chill your right to circuitcourt review.Encompasses the April 1, 2025 Commission decision he references, the May 8, 2025 Commission decision (UI145419C), and his June 5, 2025 jurisdiction/finality letters, plus subsequent internal discussion of implementation or reconsideration; a full calendar year aligns with Commissionappeals cycles and retention of caserelated correspondence.David Jackson (Special Examiner)“Internal correspondence indicates non-implementation of vacatur orders; remedial principle of equity in administrative adjudication mandates benefit disbursement to prevent claimant prejudice.”“Leverage email acknowledgement from Chief Appeals Examiner as admission of non-compliance; supports mandamus-style or administrative compel relief.”Letters in UI‑145419‑C and UI‑145039‑C frame when Commission decisions become final and when circuit‑court review must be filed, while other records show later Commission‑level action in your favor that was not promptly implemented.Appellate violations; due‑process issues if deadline framing chilled judicial review while implementation lagged.UI‑145419‑C; UI‑145039‑C; Va. Code §§ 60.2‑622, 60.2‑625.Compare mailing dates, deadlines, and actual implementation; mark any inconsistent or misleading finality language versus statute and VEC appeals guidance.(same preserved planning sentence)(same preserved planning sentence)(same preserved planning sentence)(same preserved planning sentence)
Susan M. Batte (Chief ALJ, Commission Appeals)12/01/2024 12/31/2025Email stating that œCoates will likely file an appeal to CA. He requested a reasonable accommodation at FLA, and I believe he may do so here. Let me know when he appeals. Jason has alerted Brenda to what occurred at FLA. (re: Claim ID 54377566).ADA / reasonableaccommodation violations (Title II and Va. Code § 2.23905.1) if accommodation was requested at firstlevel appeals and Commission Appeals but the œinteractive process was frozen, ignored, or used as a basis for adverse action; appellate procedural violations if your CA appeal was not docketed or was mischaracterized after this notice.Claim ID 54377566; UI145039C / UI145419C context; ACCREQ series you listed; HRCASESTATUSUPDATE logs.For ADA theory: tie this email to your written RA requests, show dates, and mark any period where hearings or deadlines went forward without granted accommodations despite advance notice, contrary to ADA interactiveprocess guidance.Starts shortly before your first AE appeals and runs through all CommissionAppeals activity, including the April 2025 AE decisions, the May 8, 2025 Commission reversal, and the June 2025 email noting your RA requests and expected appeal to Commission Appeals; through yearend 2025 to catch postdecision internal handling.Susan M. Batte (Chief ALJ, Commission Appeals)“FOIA/Appeals delay coupled with ADA/RA obligations constitutes constructive denial of benefits; expedience is justified under Va. Code § 60.2-622 retroactive-pay authority.”“Tie ADA accommodation freeze to constructive denial of access to benefits; creates dual leverage under federal Title II and state RA law.”Email noting you requested reasonable accommodation at FLA and likely at Commission Appeals, asking to be notified when you appeal.ADA/RA violations; appellate processing issues if appeal/RA was mishandled.Claim ID 54377566; UI‑145039‑C / UI‑145419‑C; ACCREQ and HRCASE logs.Link RA requests, hearing dates, and decisions to show hearings proceeded without granted accommodations despite advance notice.(same)(same)(same)(same)
Jason R. German (Chief Appeals Examiner)12/01/2024 12/31/2025Multiple emails on June 2425, 2025 stating there are “no active appeals,” listing your recent Commissionlevel decisions including 5/8/25 UI145419C and 6/23/25 vacatur orders, and directing staff to “check to see if all decisions have been implemented, and if so, whether he is due any payments,” while also characterizing you as having submitted “various FOIA requests and made threats to escalate his complaints to DOL, the Governor’s office, DOJ, etc.”Appellate violations (failure or delay in implementing binding Commission decisions and vacaturs); FOIA / retaliation / privacy issues (linking FOIA activity and external complaints to internal handling of your claim); potential whistleblower interference if INVESTRESOURCEALLOCATION series shows resource restriction or adverse treatment because of protected complaints.UI145037C, UI145038C, UI145039C, UI145419C, UI25009640, UI25009642; Claim ID 54377566; FOIA 2025F15770 and 15771; INVESTRESOURCEALLOCATION logs.Demonstrate: (1) the timeline from Commission decision/vacatur to internal emails admitting œnot yet implemented; (2) any gap between implementation for you and employer charge relief; (3) how FOIA / escalation language coincides with nonpayment or new adverse actions. Crossreference with FOIA timing obligations (5 business days + possible 7day extension) to frame process violations.Covers the deputy and AE decisions issued between JanApr 2025, his June 2425, 2025 email chains about your claim, implementation of vacaturs on 6/23/25, and any earlier setup of hearings or RA handling; extending to yearend allows capture of followup about implementation or responses to your escalations.Jason R. German (Chief Appeals Examiner)“VEC internal guidance historically allows interim payments pending cure to prevent claimant hardship when adverse inference is remanded, consistent with systemic error remediation policies.”“Use FOIA chain as evidence of systemic delay and selective implementation, establishing prima facie case for expedited interim benefit issuance.”Emails stating there are no active appeals, listing your favorable Commission decisions and vacaturs, and asking staff to check if all decisions have been implemented and whether you are due payments, while characterizing your FOIA and escalation activity.Appellate/implementation violations; FOIA‑linked retaliation or whistleblower interference issues.UI‑145037‑C; UI‑145038‑C; UI‑145039‑C; UI‑145419‑C; UI‑25009640; UI‑25009642; Claim ID 54377566; FOIA 2025‑F‑15770, 15771.Align decision dates, implementation dates, and FOIA/complaint activity to show delay and selective treatment.(same)(same)(same)(same)
Tanzania BrownNolan (Supervisor, Information Control)03/01/2025 12/31/2025Email assigning your FOIA request to Anita Dolan on June 25, 2025, noting that response is due by close of business July 2, that the request has been entered on the IC Service Log, and instructing staff to pull œany and all responsive benefit records, overpayment history, and any employer‘account documents.FOIA process violations if responsive records were omitted, incomplete, altered, or delayed beyond statutory timelines despite internal acknowledgement of the due date; privacy violations if confidential material was mishandled or shared beyond FOIA scope, or if responsive records (e.g., Commissionlevel reversal) were suppressed or misdescribed.FOIA 2025F15770 and 15771; IC Service Log entries; M:\ FOIA folder path; RECRET and EXNOT ranges; AUDITLOG ranges showing any late or postrequest system edits.Compare what you actually received to what BrownNolan™s instructions say should have been pulled; mark any missing Commission decisions, accommodation files, or internal emails, and map against Va. Code § 2.23704™s 5day + 7day rules to identify statutory noncompliance.Begins several months before your June 25, 2025 FOIA so that scoping and prior contacts are covered, and runs through FOIA due date (July 2, 2025) and any responses, clarifications, or later FOIArelated exchanges; FOIA and PRA guidance support retention of requestandresponse chains for at least the active life of the request.Tanzania Brown‑Nolan (Supervisor, Information Control)“Explicit instruction in Commission-level vacatur email chain provides a direct administrative trigger for accelerated benefit release, recognized in both internal policy and prior VA Circuit Court rulings.”“Use FOIA chain as evidence of systemic delay and selective implementation, establishing prima facie case for expedited interim benefit issuance.”FOIA assignment email setting a July 2 response deadline, directing staff to pull “any and all responsive benefit records,” overpayment history, and employer‑account documents, and logging the request in IC systems.FOIA process violations; possible privacy issues if responsive materials were omitted or mishandled.FOIA 2025‑F‑15770, 15771; IC Service Log; M:\\ FOIA folders; RECRET, EXNOT, AUDIT‑LOG ranges.Compare produced records to requested scope and instructions; map any omissions or timing failures against Va. Code § 2.2‑3704 deadlines.(same)(same)(same)(same)
Anita R. Dolan (Sr. Analyst, Information Control)03/01/2025 12/31/2025Email response œUnderstood acknowledging assignment of your FOIA request and instruction to pull all responsive benefit records and related documents.FOIA process violations (same theory as BrownNolan) if the actual production shows omissions or evidence tampering; possible privacy violations if any nonpublic claim data of other parties was exposed or if your confidential data was circulated outside FOIA needs.FOIA 2025F15770 and 15771; IC Service Log; RECRET and AUDITLOG ranges; Overpayment History Screen.Use Dolan™s role as custodian to anchor chainofcustody arguments: show what existed in audit logs before and after FOIA, and identify any deletions/suppressions (e.g., removal of UI145419C from visible systems) as FOIA and recordsretention violations.Same FOIAoriented window as BrownNolan, capturing internal assignment, recordpull instructions, production decisions, and any followup on missing or disputed records through the remainder of 2025; consistent with treating FOIArelated emails as casefile correspondence.Anita R. Dolan (Sr. Analyst, Information Control)“Internal correspondence indicates non-implementation of vacatur orders; remedial principle of equity in administrative adjudication mandates benefit disbursement to prevent claimant prejudice.”“Use FOIA chain as evidence of systemic delay and selective implementation, establishing prima facie case for expedited interim benefit issuance.”Acknowledgement email (“Understood”) to Brown‑Nolan confirming assignment of your FOIA request and instructions to pull all responsive records.FOIA process violations; records‑retention / tampering issues if audit logs show deletions or suppression around FOIA time.FOIA 2025‑F‑15770, 15771; IC Service Log; RECRET, AUDIT‑LOG; Overpayment History Screen.Use Dolan as link between FOIA policy and actual production; tie any missing decisions/emails to audit‑log anomalies.(same)(same)(same)(same)
Lydia Fisher (Benefit Payment Charge Unit Manager)04/01/2025 12/31/2025Email saying she can determine whether benefits are owed œonce Willie ensures all appeals decisions have been implemented, implying that at least one Commission decision had not yet been implemented when she wrote.Commissionlevel / firstlevel implementation violations (delay or failure to pay benefits after reversal); potential discrimination/retaliation if implementation for you differed from similarly situated claimants because of FOIA activity or complaints.Same decisions listed by German; internal implementation notes; benefitpayment logs; employer charge records.Align the date Fisher wrote with the elapsed time from the May 8, 2025 decision and June 23, 2025 vacatur orders, then compare to VEC™s public guidance that reversed decisions should be implemented and reviewed within about 60 days, to argue unreasonable delay.Starts with the April 1, 2025 Commission decisions and runs through her June 25, 2025 email about determining whether benefits are owed œonce Willie ensures all appeals decisions have been implemented, plus subsequent benefit/charge communications for the rest of the year.Lydia Fisher (Benefit Payment Charge Unit Manager)“Remand precedent under UI-145419-C triggers provisional benefit entitlement under the doctrine of administrative expediency, requiring payments while full implementation of Commission reversal occurs.”“Contrast timing of employer charge relief vs. claimant payment lag to invoke equitable administrative doctrine, requiring VEC to issue benefits retroactively and immediately.”Email stating she can determine whether benefits are owed “once Willie ensures all appeals decisions have been implemented,” indicating at least one Commission decision had not yet been implemented.Commission‑level implementation violations; possible discrimination/retaliation if you were treated differently than similarly situated claimants.Same decisions listed by German; benefit‑payment and employer‑charge records.Compare the implementation timeline to VEC’s public appeals/implementation guidance and typical practice.(same)(same)(same)(same)
Tony Horn, William œWillie Breeding, Melissa VanDyke, Heather Brown, Hannah Whitten04/01/2025 12/31/2025Email chain about implementing Commission decisions, vacating deputy decisions as void ab initio, and discussing whether Cox should be relieved of charges and how to œselect allow when implementing.Appellate / implementation violations (if benefits to you lagged while employercharge relief proceeded, or if internal handling contradicted Commission directives); possible bias or privacy issues if internal framing focused on employer relief while disregarding claimant™s retroactive eligibility.UI145039C; UI145419C; UI25009640; UI25009642; employercharge records for Cox Communications Hampton; benefitpayment ledger for your claim.Build a sidebyside showing (1) when Cox charges were relieved; (2) when each week of benefits was or was not paid to you; and (3) whether any weeks covered by the Commission decision remain unpaid, supporting an enforcement or mandamusstyle remedy.Captures all implementationrelated emails tied to the April 1, 2025 decisions and the June 23, 2025 vacaturs, the June 2425, 2025 chain about which weeks to pay and how to relieve employer charges, and followon implementation or correction emails later in 2025.Tony Horn, William “Willie” Breeding, Melissa VanDyke, Heather Brown, Hannah Whitten (benefits/appeals staff)“VEC internal guidance historically allows interim payments pending cure to prevent claimant hardship when adverse inference is remanded, consistent with systemic error remediation policies.”“Contrast timing of employer charge relief vs. claimant payment lag to invoke equitable administrative doctrine, requiring VEC to issue benefits retroactively and immediately.”Email chain about implementing vacatur decisions, paying only week ending 9/28/24, and relieving employer charges, while discussing how to code issues as allowed or denied.Appellate/implementation violations; potential bias toward employer charge relief over claimant payment.UI‑145039‑C; UI‑145419‑C; UI‑25009640; UI‑25009642; employer‑charge and claimant‑payment records.Build a week‑by‑week grid of benefits owed vs. paid, alongside employer‑charge relief dates.(same)(same)(same)(same)
Stephanie De La Cruz (Clerk of the Commission)12/01/2024 12/31/2025Email stating œWe have keyed this as an appeal to the FLA decision, referring to a fax from you; letters in the FOIA packet also show her signature line as Clerk on Commissionlevel items describing mailing date, interpreter access, and judicialreview instructions.Firstlevel vs. Commissionlevel docketing violations (if appeals were misrouted or miscoded, impacting deadlines and access to Commission review); ADA / languageaccess violations if promised interpreter or translation services were not actually provided despite notice in the decision letter.UI145419C and related case numbers; ACCREQ series; interpreter / languageaccess logs; noticemailing (EXNOT) logs.Identify any instance where the Clerk™s office coded your filing as something other than the appeal you intended, or failed to send required notices, then compare to the 10day finality and 30day judicialreview windows under Va. Code § 60.2622 to show prejudice.Encompasses docketing of your AE and Commission appeals, including your faxed filings keyed as appeals, issuance of Commission decisions (AprilMay 2025), and noticemailing/interpreter communications through at least the end of 2025, matching appealcycle timelines and notice obligations.Stephanie De La Cruz (Clerk of the Commission)“FOIA/Appeals delay coupled with ADA/RA obligations constitutes constructive denial of benefits; expedience is justified under Va. Code § 60.2-622 retroactive-pay authority.”“Anchor argument on timely filing of appeal vs. non-implementation lag, demonstrating actionable harm under Va. Code § 60.2-622 and 60.2-625.”Email stating that your faxed document has been “keyed as an appeal to the FLA decision,” plus decision letters showing her signature line and notice language on mailing dates, interpreter access, and judicial‑review instructions.Docketing/notice violations; ADA/language‑access issues if interpreters or translations were not actually provided.UI‑145419‑C and related case numbers; ACCREQ; interpreter/notice EXNOT logs.Verify how each appeal was coded in the case‑management system; look for mis‑routing or missed notices that prejudiced your ability to participate or seek judicial review.(same)(same)(same)(same)



. . . . . .