Auto-Response By (Administrator) (05/19/2025 01:15 PM)

Thank you for contacting the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  This automated response confirms receipt of your inquiry and is not intended to address your specific questions.  For those of you wishing to file a charge of employment discrimination, please note that there is a time limit of either 180 or 300 days to file a charge, depending on a number of factors.  If you want to begin the process, you can use our online assessment tool at US EEOC .  You can not file a charge via email.  We will respond to your specific questions as quickly as possible.


 

Customer By CSS Email (Thomas Coates) (05/19/2025 01:15 PM)

Dear Investigator Perez,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the above-referenced
matter.

I must respectfully object to several aspects of your letter and the
approach reflected therein:

1. Communication and Pretext
For the record, I have been consistently responsive and available by email
throughout this process. While you may have attempted to reach me by phone
a few times when I was unavailable (such as while driving), I have made it
clear that email is my preferred and most reliable method of communication.
You have had every opportunity to contact me by email, and I have responded
promptly and substantively to all such correspondence.
I must also note that, in many cases, parties attempt to use allegations of
unresponsiveness or lack of communication as a pretext or rationalization
to justify procedural shortcuts or adverse actions. In this case, such a
characterization is wholly inaccurate and unsupported by the record. I
respectfully request that you refrain from making or relying on such
assertions in the future, as they are not factually grounded and should not
be used to minimize or divert from the substantive issues at hand.

2. Attempt to Restrict or Minimize the Record
Your letter references “procedures that govern EEOC’s statutory obligations
at this stage,” and suggests that my submissions “fall outside” those
procedures. I must clarify that every document, motion, and addendum I have
submitted-including my Formal Motion No. 1 for Memorialization, Retaliation
Timeline, and Paradigm-Shifting Addenda-is fully supported by EEOC
regulations (see 29 C.F.R. §§ 1601.15, 1601.18), federal law (42 U.S.C. §
12117(a)), and the EEOC-DOJ-DOL MOU. These filings are not only proper, but
required to preserve the integrity of the administrative record and to
ensure cross-agency and judicial review.

3. Use of Minimizing or Presumptive Language
Your letter employs phrases such as “lack evidence,” “routine performance
discussions,” “unrelated to disability,” “outside jurisdiction,” and
“unlikely that additional investigation will result in a cause finding.”
These are not neutral assessments, but rather conclusory statements
unsupported by the full documentary record I have submitted. I specifically
object to the use of such language to prematurely foreclose further
investigation or to minimize the seriousness of the documented retaliation,
perjury, and executive-level noncompliance at issue.

4. Attempt to Rush or Pressure the Process
Stating that the case “may be dismissed” if I do not respond within 10
days, despite the existence of substantial, ongoing evidence and
cross-agency filings, appears to be an attempt to rush this matter to
closure without proper consideration. The record demonstrates a pattern of
ongoing retaliation, record falsification, and bad faith by the
Respondent-including 48 unsupported assertions in Cox’s position statement,
each of which I have challenged and demanded substantiation for in my
filings.

5. Improper Limitation of Issues
Your letter asserts that “claims unrelated to Title VII or the ADA… cannot
be addressed here.” However, the facts and evidence I have
submitted-including wage, FMLA, and HIPAA violations-are directly relevant
to the pattern of retaliation and bad faith, and are being reviewed by the
DOL, DOJ, and Virginia OSIG as part of a coordinated, systemic
investigation. The EEOC is required to preserve and transmit this record
for cross-agency review.

6. Request for Procedural Integrity and Accountability
I request that you refrain from using the above tactics or language in this
case. It is clear from the record-and the actions of all parties to
date-that this matter cannot be minimized, rushed, or procedurally
foreclosed without risking a denial of due process and cross-agency
accountability. I further request that you confirm the entry of my Formal
Motion No. 1 and all addenda into the permanent record, and that you
transmit these materials to all relevant oversight agencies as required by
law.

7. Notice of Cross-Agency Mirroring
This response, and all related filings, are being mirrored to the U.S.
Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Justice, Virginia Office of the
State Inspector General, and the Office of the Governor of Virginia to
ensure full transparency and independent oversight.

Conclusion:
Please do not attempt to use procedural shortcuts, minimizing language, or
arbitrary deadlines to restrict the record or foreclose my rights in this
matter. The integrity of this process depends on a full, accurate, and
independently reviewable record.

I am prepared to provide any further evidence or clarification as needed
and reserve all rights for further administrative and judicial review.

Respectfully,

/s/ Thomas D. Coates
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com
(757) 374-3539


---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov>
Date: Mon, May 19, 2025 at 12:49 PM
Subject: RE: [External] Re: [External] Re: Coates v. Cox Communications
12K-2025-00001
To: tdcoates@googlemail.com <tdcoates@googlemail.com>


Mr. Coates,

I am writing in response to the Charge of Discrimination (Charge No.
12K-2025-00001) you filed with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC).

I have made multiple attempts to speak with you over the phone in regard to
your claim and to attain a verbal or written rebuttal to Respondent’s
position statement. You have instead elected to send multiple documents and
requests that fall outside of the procedures that govern EEOC’s statutory
obligations at this stage in your process. Therefore, I am sending you this
email to advise you of where your case stands as of today.

After a thorough review of your allegations, we respectfully submit that
your claims do not constitute violations of federal anti-discrimination
laws, including Title VII of the Civil Rights Act or the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA).

Your claims primarily allege failure to accommodate, discrimination,
harassment, and retaliation related to your disability. However, Cox
Communications Hampton Roads, LLC provided extensive reasonable
accommodations, including six months of job-protected leave, approval to
work from home, a phased return-to-work plan, flexible scheduling, and
additional break times. These accommodations were tailored to your medical
needs as outlined by your healthcare providers. Your employment was
terminated solely due to your failure to return to work after the
expiration of approved leave on December 29, 2024, despite clear
instructions and a grace period extended until January 2, 2025. This
decision was unrelated to your disability or accommodation requests.

Additionally, your allegations of harassment and retaliation lack evidence.
Routine performance discussions and corrective actions addressing your
sales performance and attendance issues occurred prior to your disclosure
of any disability and were consistent with Cox’s standard policies.

Claims unrelated to Title VII or the ADA, such as those involving the
Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) or wage laws, fall outside the EEOC’s
jurisdiction and cannot be addressed here.

Based on our review of the evidence, it is unlikely that additional
investigation will result in a cause finding. However, if you have
additional significant evidence that you believe supports the allegations,
please submit it to me within 10 days of the date on this letter. If we do
not hear from you by May 29, 2025, we may dismiss this case based on the
available evidence. If the case is dismissed, EEOC will upload a Dismissal
and Notice of Rights via the portal which will allow you to pursue claims
further by filing a private lawsuit within ninety (90) days of receipt of
the Notice. You may reach me via this email.







Alexander Perez, Investigator

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Norfolk Local Office

*200 Granby Street, Suite 739*

*Norfolk, VA 23510*

*757-600-4725*

*757- 441-6720* (fax)

Alexander.Perez@EEOC.Gov



“Working hard for something we don't care about is called stress: Working
hard for something we love is called passion.”
*Simon Sinek*



*From:* Thomas - <tdcoates@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2025 12:44 PM
*To:* ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@EEOC.GOV>; NORFGOV <NORFGOV@eeoc.gov>;
crt@usdoj.gov; osig@osig.virginia.gov; whdcomplaints@dol.gov; whd.dc@dol.gov;
subpoena@eeoc.gov; INFO <info@eeoc.gov>; FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT <
foia@eeoc.gov>
*Subject:* [External] Re: [External] Re: Coates v. Cox Communications
12K-2025-00001







Dear Investigator Perez,

Thank you for your inquiry.

To your question: I am not waiving any rights to submit additional factual
information or evidence. My participation in this process remains active,
and no silence or delay should be construed as acceptance of the current
record or as consent to close or finalize the matter.

Additionally, there are procedural matters and appeals currently pending,
and I have outstanding requests for clarification and acknowledgment from
your office that have not yet been addressed.

For the record, I respectfully clarify the following:

1. Deeming Non-Response as Waiver or Acceptance:
My lack of immediate reply or any delay in communication should not be
interpreted as a waiver of my rights or as acceptance of the record as it
stands.
Do not do this; it is not proper in this situation.
2. Premature Closure or Expedited Determination:
Closing or advancing this matter while procedural questions or appeals
are pending, or without addressing my outstanding requests, would be
improper.
Do not do this; it is not proper in this situation.
3. Drawing Adverse Inferences Based on Timing or Silence:
Any negative inference or procedural consequence based solely on timing
or lack of response, while appeals and procedural issues remain unresolved,
is not appropriate.
Do not do this; it is not proper in this situation.

I again request that you provide responses to my recent procedural
questions, including (but not limited to) confirmation of the status of the
record, the process for supplementing evidence, and acknowledgment of the
mirror filing with oversight agencies.

Thank you for your attention.

Sincerely,
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com
(757) 374-3539
1. Certification of Service – Letter to Alexander Perez and Charlotte
Burrows

CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE

I, Thomas D. Coates, hereby certify that on this 19th day of May, 2025, a
true and correct copy of the correspondence addressed to Investigator
Alexander Perez and Chair Charlotte Burrows regarding EEOC Charge No.
12K-2025-00001 was served via electronic mail to the following parties:

- Alexander Perez, Investigator, U.S. EEOC (alexander.perez@eeoc.gov)
- Charlotte A. Burrows, Chair, U.S. EEOC (charlotte.burrows@eeoc.gov)
- norfolk@eeoc.gov
- norfgov@eeoc.gov
- subpoena@eeoc.gov
- info@eeoc.gov
- foia@eeoc.gov
- U.S. Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division (whdcomplaints@dol.gov
, whd.dc@dol.gov)
- U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division (crt@usdoj.gov)
- Virginia Office of the State Inspector General (osig@osig.virginia.gov)
- [Your own email addresses for record]

I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

/s/ Thomas D. Coates
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com
(757) 374-3539
Date: May 19, 2025



On Mon, May 19, 2025 at 11:50 AM ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov>
wrote:

Mr. Coates,

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

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Norfolk Local Office

*200 Granby Street, Suite 739*

*Norfolk, VA 23510*

*757-600-4725*

*757- 441-6720* (fax)

Alexander.Perez@EEOC.Gov



“Working hard for something we don't care about is called stress: Working
hard for something we love is called passion.”
*Simon Sinek*



*From:* Thomas - <tdcoates@gmail.com>
*Sent:* Monday, May 19, 2025 11:27 AM
*To:* ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@EEOC.GOV>; NORFGOV <NORFGOV@eeoc.gov>;
norfolk@eeoc.gov; CHARLOTTE BURROWS <CHARLOTTE.BURROWS@EEOC.GOV>
*Cc:* whd@dol.gov; osig@osig.virginia.gov; crt@usdoj.gov; Thomas Coates <
tdcoates@gmail.com>
*Subject:* [External] Re: Coates v. Cox Communications 12K-2025-00001



*CAUTION: *The sender of this message is external to the EEOC network.
Please use care when clicking on links and responding with sensitive
information. Forward suspicious emails to phishing@eeoc.gov.



Subject: Formal Notice: Stay of Action Required During Appeal – Coates v.
Cox Communications 12K-2025-00001



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.
------------------------------
2. Your Prior Actions Are Procedurally Improper

Your prior communications-including your denial of my tolling request and
your attempt to move the charge forward despite my explicit written
objections-are contrary to EEOC regulations and due process.
EEOC’s own rules require that:

- No case may be closed or advanced to final determination while an
appeal or motion for review is pending.
- All evidence, addenda, and objections must be preserved and
incorporated into the record.
- The investigator must not communicate with the Respondent or take any
further action except as required by the appeals process.

------------------------------
3. Directives and Required Actions

You are hereby instructed to:

- Cease all communications with Cox Communications and their
counsel regarding
this charge until the appeal is resolved.
- Take no action to close, transmit, or otherwise alter the record except
as required by the appeals process.
- Acknowledge in writing that you will comply with these directives and
confirm that no further action will be taken until the appeal is concluded.

------------------------------
4. Legal Authority and Consequences

Failure to comply with these requirements will constitute a violation of:

- 29 C.F.R. § 1601.21 (stay of proceedings during appeal)
- EEOC Management Directive 110, Chapter 6 (appeals and stays)
- 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(b) (duty to investigate and preserve the record)

Any further improper action will result in a formal complaint to the EEOC
Office of Inspector General and a request for supervisory review and
reassignment.
------------------------------
5. Memorializing the Record

This letter and all referenced emails, motions, and addenda are to be
included in the official record for this charge.
You are not to communicate with the Respondent, close the file, or transmit
any findings until the appeal process is complete and all procedural rights
have been observed.
------------------------------

Please confirm receipt and compliance by 5:00 PM ET, May 23, 2025.

Sincerely,
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com
(757) 374-3539


On Monday, May 19, 2025, ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov> wrote:

Mr. Coates,

Please advise as to whether the attached document shall serve as your
rebuttal for the charge number referenced in the Subject line.

Please respond to this email by May 21, 2025.



Best,



Alexander Perez, Investigator

U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission

Norfolk Local Office

*200 Granby Street, Suite 739
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/200+Granby+Street,+Suite+739+%0D%0A+Norfolk,+VA+23510?entry=gmail&source=g>*

*Norfolk, VA 23510
<https://www.google.com/maps/search/200+Granby+Street,+Suite+739+%0D%0A+Norfolk,+VA+23510?entry=gmail&source=g>*

*757-600-4725*

*757- 441-6720* (fax)

Alexander.Perez@EEOC.Gov



“Working hard for something we don't care about is called stress: Working
hard for something we love is called passion.”
*Simon Sinek*