Field Report Review

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 AR:

PEREZ: May 19, 2025, 8:45AM Mr. Coates, Please advise as to whether the attached document shall serve as your rebuttal for the charge number referenced in the Subject line.

MR. COATES: May 19, 2025, 11:26 AM

MR. COATES: May 19, 2025, 11:26 AM Dear Investigator Perez, This is to memorialize the current status of EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 and to clarify the proper legal and procedural steps required of your office at this stage. 1. This Matter is Under Formal Appeal – No Action Permitted Pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1601.21 and EEOC Management Directive 110 (MD-110), Chapter 6, all substantive processing, including communications with the Respondent, closure of the file, or transmission of any rebuttal or findings, is stayed pending resolution of my appeal.

You are not authorized to submit, transmit, or otherwise act on any part of this case until the appeal is fully adjudicated.

PEREZ: May 19, 2025, 12:43PM

May 19, 2025, 1243PM

Please respond to my specific question by close of business today so I may move forward with this matter. I am unable to leave this matter idle without a response from you. Do you plan on submitting any additional factual information or is your attachment your written rebuttal?

Failure to respond to my question will be taken as a confirmation that your rebuttal has been filed and you do not plan on submitting any more information in regard to this matter by your deadline of May 21, 2025.

Alexander Perez

Investigator

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.

1. Improper Ultimatum to a Pro Se Complainant
Issuing a same-day response ultimatum to a pro se complainant violated MD-110 § 6-8’s requirement for reasonable, accessible timeframes.
2. Misuse of Response Deadlines to Imply Waiver
Threatening to infer waiver from silence without formal closure violates 29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(b); such procedural shortcuts are unlawful.
3. Creation of Adverse Inference in the Record
Asserting finality from non-response improperly prejudiced the record, violating MD-110 § 6-14 and tainting future judicial review.
4. Improper Prejudicial Positioning Against Pro Se Party
Unilaterally declaring silence equals waiver, without regulatory authority or formal notice, breaches 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c) and EEOC fairness mandates.
5. Supervisory Complicity and Neglect (Rosa-Ramos)

Repeated supervisory notice failures under MD-110 § 2-302 constitute dereliction of duty and permit unchecked procedural abuses to persist.

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 AR:

1. Improper Ultimatum to a Pro Se Complainant

2. Misuse of Response Deadlines to Imply Waiver

3. Creation of Adverse Inference in the Record

4. Improper Prejudicial Positioning Against Pro Se Party

5. Supervisory Complicity and Neglect (Rosa-Ramos)

🔸 Note: Mr. Rosa-Ramos has been duly placed on notice regarding this evidence as of May 19, 2025, 1243PM.