Contrasting Cox’s assertions from their April 11, 2025 SOP with documentary evidence from Exhibit A.
| Cox SOP Claim | Contradictory Evidence (Exhibit A) | Violation / Citation |
|---|---|---|
| “Cox engaged in an ongoing interactive process…” (p. 1) | “There is no record of written HR response to EthicsPoint entries from July 2024.” “ADA certifications submitted June 4 were not routed to payroll for 25+ days.” | Failure to engage: 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3); ADA § 12112(b)(5)(A) |
| “Cox approved nearly all accommodations requested by Mr. Coates.” (p. 4) | “Access to HRIS, payroll portal, and team Slack was denied post-request.” | Retaliation & interference: ADA § 12203(a) |
| “Mr. Coates did not report any discrimination before separation.” (p. 5) | “Six separate time-stamped EthicsPoint reports were submitted between June and August 2024.” | Failure to act on internal EEO reports: 29 C.F.R. § 1602.14; SOX whistleblower protections |
| “There is no indication of systemic failure or delay.” (p. 6) | “Four HRIS accommodation cases remained unresolved for over 180 days.” “Medical leave submitted to MetLife and Cox was not linked in internal systems.” | FMLA interference (29 U.S.C. § 2615); ADA procedural failure |
| “Complainant voluntarily resigned.” (p. 1) | “Pay was cut, no separation paperwork issued, constructive discharge asserted in VEC appeal (Exhibit B).” | Misrepresentation of facts; constructive discharge precedent: Green v. Brennan, 578 U.S. 547 |
Submitted in Rebuttal to Position Statement Dated April 11, 2025
The Position Statement submitted by Cox Communications contains demonstrably false representations regarding the ADA interactive process, accommodation handling, and internal complaint procedures. Contrary to Cox’s assertion that “nearly all accommodations were approved,” internal records confirm that no written response was issued to multiple EthicsPoint disclosures detailing ADA barriers, and that accommodation documents were not routed to payroll for more than three weeks (in direct conflict with 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(o)(3)).
Furthermore, Cox's claim that the Complainant did not report discrimination prior to separation is disproven by six documented internal reports filed between June and August 2024, all visible in EthicsPoint logs and executive system notifications. Cox executives, including Kia Painter and Ursula Rogers, had direct access to these reports and failed to respond—creating a presumption of bad faith and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 12203(b).
Finally, Cox’s assertion that separation was voluntary is refuted by:
Immediate payroll cut-off without notice or cause;
Refusal to classify medically excused leave;
VEC findings that reversed separation status and restored eligibility on appeal.
These procedural misrepresentations, along with unauthorized dissemination of protected health information (PHI) across internal teams without legal justification, represent violations of ADA, FMLA, and HIPAA privacy and retaliation statutes.
Legal Basis for EEOC Action:
29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b) – False and misleading employer responses
42 U.S.C. § 12112(b)(5)(A) – Failure to engage in interactive process
42 U.S.C. § 12203(a) – Retaliation after protected activity
29 C.F.R. § 1602.14 – Failure to preserve internal complaint records
18 U.S.C. § 1001 – Knowingly false statements in federal filings