RE: Request for Reconsideration – EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001 (Thomas D. Coates v. Cox Communications)

To:
Veronica R. Chaney
District Director’s Secretary
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
veronica.chaney@eeoc.gov

Cc:
Norberto Rosa-Ramos, Local Office Director

Date: May 28, 2025

Dear Ms. Chaney,

Thank you for your prompt acknowledgment of my request for reconsideration regarding the Determination and Notice of Rights issued on May 28, 2025, for EEOC Charge No. 12K-2025-00001.

I confirm my intent to submit additional evidence and legal argument in support of this reconsideration. I respectfully ask that this letter be forwarded to District Director Mrs. Elizabeth Rader for her review, and that my right to supplement the record remain open and unimpeded until I notify the agency that my submission is complete.

1. Preservation of Right to Supplement

I am actively preparing relevant documentation and evidence and will submit it shortly. Please confirm that no decision will be rendered until I have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to file these supplemental materials. I further request that any prejudice from this pending submission be expressly avoided.

2. Additional Matter for Inquiry – New Charges and Violations

In addition to this reconsideration request, I also wish to notify the agency of a new and separate matter that requires proper handling and assignment. I am preparing a formal inquiry concerning recent violations committed by both Cox Communications and MetLife, which involve ongoing and independent acts of discrimination, retaliation, and interference with disability-related rights.

These new issues involve continuing violations and a potential new charge and should not be conflated with the pending matter under reconsideration. I ask that the EEOC ensure this additional inquiry is formally received, logged, and directed to the appropriate personnel or office with full procedural safeguards.

3. Summary of Procedural and Substantive Concerns (Current Charge)

As previously stated and preserved for the record:

• The EEOC’s reliance on an unsigned or procedurally defective position statement from the respondent violates 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a), rendering the determination procedurally void.

• Multiple unanswered motions, objections, and procedural filings remain in the file and constitute a denial of due process.

• Cox Communications failed to engage in the interactive process, denied accommodations, and retaliated in violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 12112(b)(5)(A) and 12203.

• These failures resulted in significant and ongoing harm, including financial losses, health coverage disruption, emotional distress, and career injury.

4. Request for Full and Impartial Review

I request a thorough and impartial review of all evidence, communications, and filings in the record. Please also ensure that any internal notes, communications, or documentation not previously shared with me are included in the Director’s review and made available for my inspection.

5. Preservation of Right to Sue

I understand that this request does not toll or extend my 90-day right to file suit. I intend to preserve and exercise all legal rights available to me and do not waive any such rights through this communication.

6. Request for Confirmation

Please confirm:

• Receipt of this letter,

• That my record remains open for supplementation,

• That the District Director will receive and review the full record,

• That my new EEOC inquiry involving recent violations by Cox and MetLife is being appropriately handled as a separate matter.

Thank you for your continued attention.

Respectfully,
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com
(757) 374-3539
Virginia Beach, VA

Dear Ms. Clancy,

Whether your engagement with my case is prompted by a stirring of the human heart—by a sense of justice or recognition of potential wrongdoing—or by a commitment to ensuring that agency procedures advance efficiently and without impediments, I acknowledge and respect both motivations. My intent in this letter is to address and embrace both perspectives. If you are moved by the former, you will recognize the necessity of reckoning with what follows. If your role requires the latter, this letter ensures that the statutory and factual basis for all actions is clear, complete, and answerable to both law and principle. In either case, what follows is designed to preserve the integrity of the process for all reviewing bodies.

Statutory Violations Identified by Oversight Authorities

1. Reliance on Unsigned or Unauthenticated Evidence
   The EEOC accepted and relied upon an unsigned position statement from Cox Communications, despite immediate objection and statutory requirements for authentication.
   Violation: 18 U.S.C. § 1001; 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5)
   Oversight: â€œFederal agencies must not rely on unsigned, uncertified, or unauthenticated evidence in adjudication or investigation.” (GAO-15-290)
   In my case: The unsigned statement was never remedied or addressed, yet was used in the agency’s handling.
2. Failure to Provide Opportunity to Respond to Adverse Evidence
   Motions and objections regarding the unsigned statement and other adverse evidence were ignored, denying a fair opportunity to respond.
   Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 555(b); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)
   Oversight: â€œAgencies must afford all parties a meaningful opportunity to respond to adverse evidence before making a determination.” (GAO-17-317)
   In my case: My objections and motions were never addressed before the case was closed.
3. Premature or Arbitrary Closure of Investigations
   The EEOC closed and reopened my inquiry multiple times without resolving pending motions or objections, lacking documented resolution.
   Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)
   Oversight: â€œPremature closure of cases without full investigation or resolution of pending motions constitutes arbitrary and capricious action.” (GAO-17-317)
   In my case: The inquiry was closed and reopened without addressing my procedural filings.
4. Failure to Maintain Accurate and Complete Records
   The EEOC’s record contains an unsigned position statement and lacks documentation of evidence evaluation or legal standards applied.
   Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(e)(5); 44 U.S.C. § 3101
   Oversight: â€œAgencies are required to maintain accurate, relevant, timely, and complete records in all proceedings.” (OIG-DOJ-21-028)
   In my case: The record is incomplete and lacks a documented rationale.
5. Ignoring or Failing to Address Formal Complaints and Escalations
   Formal objections to procedural handling and requests for correction were not addressed or responded to in writing.
   Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 553(c); 29 C.F.R. § 1614.106(e)
   Oversight: â€œAgencies must respond to formal complaints and escalations in writing and address all substantive issues raised.” (OSC-2021-0002)
   In my case: My formal objections and escalations were not answered.
6. Failure to Apply or Cite the Correct Legal Standard
   No written outline was provided of how evidence was evaluated or the legal standard applied, despite timely requests.
   Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)
   Oversight: â€œAgency decisions must clearly state the legal standard applied and the rationale for findings.” (GAO-15-290)
   In my case: No legal standard or rationale was documented.
7. Retaliation or Chilling Effect on Protected Activity
   After asserting ADA rights and filing complaints, adverse actions were not investigated as retaliation.
   Violation: 42 U.S.C. § 12203; 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)
   Oversight: â€œAny adverse action or procedural delay that discourages or penalizes protected activity is strictly prohibited.” (OSC-2021-0002)
   In my case: My protected activity was followed by adverse actions not investigated as retaliation.
8. Failure to Coordinate with Other Agencies or Acknowledge Parallel Proceedings
   Despite notification of Virginia Employment Commission and other agency involvement, the EEOC did not coordinate findings, risking inconsistent outcomes.
   Violation: 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(7); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.75
   Oversight: â€œAgencies must coordinate with other federal/state agencies handling related matters and acknowledge parallel proceedings.” (GAO-17-317)
   In my case: No coordination or acknowledgment of VEC or other agency involvement.

1. The EEOC must explicitly address that it knowingly relied on an unsigned, unauthenticated position statement as the basis for agency action, in direct violation of federal law.
2. Any final decision must state whether the agency affirms that the investigator’s actions—including acceptance of unsigned evidence and failure to resolve objections—are consistent with EEOC policy and precedent, and if so, whether this is the standard for future cases.
3. The statutory violations outlined above are not procedural technicalities, but matters that require mandatory review and reporting by oversight bodies, including the Office of Special Counsel, the Office of Inspector General, and the Government Accountability Office.
4. The involvement of other agencies, including the Virginia Employment Commission, and their agreement to coordinate or review this matter, requires the EEOC to document and justify any departures from established interagency standards and statutory mandates.

These are not discretionary matters; they are statutory requirements. This letter is intended to ensure the process is clear, complete, and answerable to both law and principle—regardless of the perspective from which it is reviewed.

Sincerely,
Thomas D. Coates
tdcoates@gmail.com