VERIFIED EVIDENCE SUBMISSION
For Court, EEOC, Cross-Agency, and Advocacy Oversight
EEOC Inquiry Comparison: NOT A DUPLICATE
This record demonstrates, with statutory and procedural citations, that EEOC Inquiry No. 437-2025-01523 is NOT A DUPLICATE of No. 437-2025-01209. Each inquiry involves distinct facts, legal issues, and evidence, and must be independently reviewed and preserved in the record.
Legal Authority: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b)-(c), § 1601.18(b); EEOC MD-110 § 2-302; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
Submitted for memorialization, due process, and 

EVIDENCE SUBMISSION:  Legal Authority: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b)-(c), § 1601.18(b); EEOC MD-110 § 2-302; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A):

                                                                                          EXHIBIT AS:


1. CLOSED: EEOC INQUIRY 437-2025-01209

PEREZ:

Apr 14, 2025, 1:17 PM Mr. Coates, Thank you for clarifying. I have closed that inquiry you refer to as duplicate. You should receive notice shortly.   


 MR. COATES: Apr 14, 2025, 2:43 PM  Dear Mr. Perez,  Thank you for your message.  To be clear, the inquiry you referenced is not a duplicate in any way. It involves separate facts and issues that are not addressed in the existing matter. I respectfully request that it not be closed.



PEREZ:

Apr 14, 2025, 2:44 PM  Mr. Coates, Yes, the inquiry was closed as a duplicate. If you wish to submit a new inquiry, you may do so.


MR. COATES: Apr 14, 2025, 2:43 PM  If it has already been closed, please notify me immediately so I may take steps to resubmit or open a new one without delay.  


PEREZ:

Apr 14, 2025, 2:45 PM  Actually, I will reopen it for you. No need to resubmit.


2. REOPENED: EEOC INQUIRY 437-2025-01209

.

MR. COATES: Apr 14, 2025, 2:55 PM  Subject: Do Not Close the Wrongful Termination Inquiry — It Is Not a Duplicate Dear Mr. Perez, I have to say I’m more than a little surprised that you would move to close this inquiry without a direct conversation, especially given how serious the issue of wrongful termination is. This is not a procedural duplicate. It’s a separate, legally distinct event with very real consequences — and I will absolutely pursue this through every available channel if necessary. Below are the specific legal and procedural grounds that make it clear this matter must remain open and independently reviewed. I will pursue each of these reasons in full if the decision to close proceeds. Wrongful Termination Is a Discrete Act It requires separate legal analysis, deadlines, remedies, and elements not present in prior claims. Termination Triggers a New Legal Timeline Filing clocks reset with termination; dismissal may bar rights tied to that action. New Individuals Are Involved in the Termination Decision-makers differ from earlier conduct; a new set of facts must be examined. The Legal Standard Is Entirely Different Burden-shifting, pretext, and causal inference are unique to retaliatory termination claims. New Evidence Emerged Post-Termination Documents and witnesses tied only to the firing didn’t exist at the time before. Different Remedies Apply to Termination Reinstatement, front pay, and backpay all hinge on a separate termination-specific record. Termination May Be Direct Retaliation for EEOC Activity Firing me after protected activity may itself violate Title VII or the ADA. Procedural Rights Would Be Undermined by Closure Notice, rebuttal rights, and agency review are distinct for new termination events. EEOC Protocols Require Review of New Claims Guidance prohibits closing materially new charges without proper jurisdictional review. Premature Closure Risks Blocking Federal Court Access If the EEOC dismisses this improperly, it harms exhaustion and injures future legal standing. Please consult with me directly before taking any further action that would impact this inquiry. It must remain open — not only because it is factually and legally distinct, but because closure would severely limit both the integrity of the process and the enforcement of federal rights. Sincerely, Thomas Coates

 EVIDENCE ORIGINAL


. .
. .

VERIFIED EVIDENCE SUBMISSION
For Court, EEOC, Cross-Agency, and Advocacy Oversight
EEOC Inquiry Comparison: NOT A DUPLICATE
This record demonstrates, with statutory and procedural citations, that EEOC Inquiry No. 437-2025-01523 is NOT A DUPLICATE of No. 437-2025-01209. Each inquiry involves distinct facts, legal issues, and evidence, and must be independently reviewed and preserved in the record.
Legal Authority: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b)-(c), § 1601.18(b); EEOC MD-110 § 2-302; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
Submitted for memorialization, due process, and cross-agency review.


. .
.






Federal Recordkeeping & Cross-Agency Compliance Notice: This attachment is preserved and submitted in accordance with the Federal Records Act (44 U.S.C. § 3101), NARA regulations (36 CFR 1220.2), and EEOC recordkeeping requirements (29 C.F.R. § 1601.80 et seq.). Proper legal notice was served to all relevant agencies. Despite this, the attached record documents a prima facie violation, followed by cascading failures to comply with federal law and procedural standards.


3. CLOSED: EEOC INQUIRY 437-2025-01209