Pro Se 15 (Rev. 12/16)

1. Plaintiff

2. Defendants

1. Cox Communications, Inc. – Corporate Defendant
2. MetLife, Inc. – Corporate Defendant
3. Keith Wilson – Employee Relations / HR Operations
4. Kia Painter – Chief People Officer / HR Oversight
5. Lakita Gaines – HR Business Partner (CCI-Atlanta)
6. Jennifer Melton – Senior Manager, Employee Relations & Compliance (CCI-Atlanta)
7. Ursula Rogers – HR Manager / Advisor
8. Azariah Workman – Supervisor / Frontline Manager
9. Donte Holmes – Supervisor (CCI-Atlanta)
10. Sarah DellaVecchio – Manager / HR Liaison (CCI-Virginia)
11. Chauntriss Herring – Benefits / HR Compliance
12. Rachel Smith – Benefits / Legal-HR Liaison

(All sued in individual and official capacities as appropriate.)

II. Basis for Jurisdiction and Venue (Sharpened)

• Federal Question Jurisdiction. This action arises under federal law, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title I, Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, and Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1343(3)-(4).
• ERISA Jurisdiction. Claims to recover benefits due under an employee benefit plan and for appropriate equitable relief lie under ERISA § 502(a); jurisdiction is proper under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1).
• Supplemental Jurisdiction. To the extent state-law claims (including Virginia FOIA and related record-access claims) are asserted, the Court has supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) because they form part of the same case or controversy.
• Personal Jurisdiction & Employer Coverage. Defendant Cox Communications, Inc. regularly conducts business in Virginia and employed Plaintiff in this District, qualifying as an “employer” under the ADA, FMLA, and Title VII. Defendant MetLife, Inc. administered or adjudicated benefit claims related to Plaintiff’s employment and purposefully directed benefits determinations into this District.
• Venue. Venue is proper in the Eastern District of Virginia, Norfolk Division under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in Virginia Beach, Virginia, and one or more Defendants are subject to the Court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to these claims.
• Jury Trial. Plaintiff demands a jury trial on all issues triable to a jury.

III. Statement of Claim / Factual Allegations (Sharpened)

• Employment & Disability Notice: Plaintiff Thomas Coates was employed by Cox Communications, Inc. in positions covered by Cox’s HR, Leave, and Benefits policies. By June 28, 2024, Defendants had actual knowledge of Plaintiff’s medical condition and need for accommodation and/or leave following an on-site episode of chest pain.
• Reasonable Accommodation Requests: Between June 2024 and February 2025, Plaintiff requested reasonable accommodations (including medical leave, schedule/assignment adjustments, and workflow modifications). Requests were submitted through Workday/HRCASE and communicated to supervisory and HR personnel including Azariah Workman, Jennifer Melton, Keith Wilson, Kia Painter, and others.
• Failure to Engage in the Interactive Process: Rather than engaging in the ADA interactive process, HR and management froze, delayed, or denied accommodation workflows (including the ACCREQ series) and conditioned Plaintiff’s continued employment on a “Return-to-Work” letter dated November 20, 2024, without providing the requested accommodations or equivalent alternatives.
• Interference with Statutory Leave: Defendants interfered with FMLA rights by discouraging leave, imposing pretextual paperwork obstacles, and threatening adverse actions if Plaintiff did not immediately return without accommodation.
• Adverse Actions & Constructive Discharge: Plaintiff faced retaliatory reassignment, negative performance actions, and a hostile environment designed to force resignation. By [end date], conditions became objectively intolerable, resulting in constructive discharge.
• Benefits Denial & ERISA Violations: Claims for short-term disability and related benefits were denied and/or delayed by MetLife and plan administrators despite medical evidence. Defendants misapplied plan terms, ignored material records, and failed to provide plan documents upon written request, thwarting meaningful administrative review.
• Record Manipulation & Spoliation Concerns: Defendants altered or suppressed material HR and leave records in Workday/HRCASE, including the EXNOT (notice) and ACCREQ (accommodation) series, impeding Plaintiff’s ability to vindicate rights and prejudicing administrative and judicial review. Plaintiff reserves the right to seek adverse-inference sanctions and other remedial measures for spoliation.
• Protected Activity & Retaliation: After Plaintiff pursued EEOC and agency processes (including VEC matters) and sought records under Virginia FOIA related to those proceedings, Defendants escalated retaliation—tightening denials, amplifying scrutiny, and further obstructing records.
• Damages: As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff suffered lost wages/benefits, medical exacerbation, emotional distress, litigation/administrative costs, and ongoing reputational and employability harm.

IV. Injuries (Sharpened Version)

• Economic Harm: substantial and ongoing deprivation of wages, fringe benefits, retirement contributions, and other contractual entitlements, caused by Defendants’ systemic obstruction of leave, misclassification, and wrongful termination practices.
• Medical Harm: exacerbation and ongoing manifestation of cardiac, neurological, and stress-induced conditions arising from denial of statutorily protected leave and failure to provide reasonable accommodations.
• Emotional and Reputational Harm: severe psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and humiliation, compounded by professional blacklisting, damage to reputation, and suppression of Plaintiff’s protected claims.
• Procedural and Statutory Harm: obstruction and interference with Plaintiff’s protected rights under EEOC, FOIA, and VEC filings, including deliberate delays, suppression of records, and manipulation of administrative remedies.
• Continuing and Irreparable Injury: ongoing inability to secure comparable employment, loss of future earning capacity, and permanent impairment of career prospects resulting from Defendants’ retaliatory and discriminatory conduct.

V. Relief Sought (Sharpened Version)

• Declaratory Relief: a judicial determination affirming that Defendants’ actions constitute willful violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983.
• Injunctive and Equitable Relief: orders requiring immediate reinstatement, restoration of all lost benefits, correction of HR and agency records, and implementation of comprehensive compliance monitoring protocols.
• Compensatory Damages: full reimbursement for economic losses, emotional distress, and reputational injury in an amount exceeding $500,000.
• Punitive Damages: substantial damages sufficient to deter future misconduct, reflecting the deliberate, malicious, and egregious nature of Defendants’ actions, no less than $1,000,000.
• Equitable Monitoring and Oversight: appointment of an independent monitor or special master to ensure ongoing compliance with federal statutory obligations.
• Costs and Attorneys’ Fees: under 42 U.S.C. § 1988, including reasonable expert witness fees and litigation expenses.
• Such Other Relief: as the Court may deem just, proper, and necessary to vindicate Plaintiff’s statutory and constitutional rights.

VI. Causes of Action (Sharpened, Focused Legal Theory)

1. Count I — ADA Title I: Failure to Accommodate & Retaliation (Against Cox and Individual Decision-Makers in Official Capacities)
   • Plaintiff is a qualified individual with a disability able to perform essential job functions with reasonable accommodation.
   • Defendants had notice of the disability and the requested accommodations.
   • Defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations and failed to engage in the interactive process in good faith (freezing or denying ACCREQ workflows; conditioning continued employment on an unconditional RTW note).
   • Defendants took adverse employment actions (including reassignment, discipline, constructive discharge) because of disability and/or in retaliation for requesting accommodation and engaging in protected EEO activity.
   • The failures and retaliation proximately caused economic, emotional, and medical harm.
   • Relief: Back pay/front pay, reinstatement or instatement, compensatory and punitive damages (as permitted), injunctive orders compelling policy corrections, training, and restoration of seniority/benefits, plus reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
2. Count II — FMLA: Interference and Retaliation (Against Cox)
   • Plaintiff was an eligible employee and Cox a covered employer under the FMLA.
   • Plaintiff requested and/or attempted to take FMLA-qualifying leave; Defendants discouraged, delayed, or denied leave and conditioned return in a manner that interfered with FMLA rights.
   • After Plaintiff attempted to exercise FMLA rights, Defendants retaliated by imposing adverse actions culminating in constructive discharge.
   • Defendants’ conduct caused wage loss, benefit loss, and other damages.
   • Relief: Lost wages/benefits and equitable relief including reinstatement, restoration of leave balances/benefits, liquidated damages for willful violations, and fees/costs.
3. Count III — ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B) and § 502(a)(3): Benefits Due & Equitable Relief (Against MetLife and the Plan/Plan Administrator)
   • Plaintiff was a participant/beneficiary of an ERISA-governed plan providing short-term disability and related benefits.
   • Defendants wrongfully denied benefits due under the plan by misapplying plan terms, ignoring medical evidence, and failing to conduct a full and fair review.
   • Defendants breached fiduciary duties by adopting claims-handling practices designed to defeat valid claims, and by failing to furnish plan documents upon request, thereby impairing appeal rights.
   • Plaintiff seeks to recover benefits due, clarify the right to future benefits, and obtain equitable relief (including injunctions requiring compliant claims procedures, production of documents, and—if appropriate—surcharge or other equitable remedies).
   • Relief: Past-due benefits with interest; declaratory/injunctive relief; statutory penalties for any failure by the Plan Administrator to furnish required documents; and reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.
4. Count IV — Title VII: Retaliation (Against Cox)
   • Plaintiff engaged in protected activity by opposing and reporting unlawful practices and by participating in EEOC/VEC/agency processes.
   • Defendants took materially adverse actions (heightened scrutiny, denials, discipline, constructive discharge) because of Plaintiff’s protected activity.
   • The retaliation caused economic and noneconomic harm.
   • Relief: Make-whole monetary relief, injunctive and declaratory relief, and fees/costs.