RULE TO SHOW CAUSE AND NOTICE OF ADVERSE INFERENCE
(EEOC Failure to Provide Required Respondent Information – EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001)
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
CHARLOTTE DISTRICT OFFICE
Thomas D. Coates, Complainant
v.
Cox Communications, Inc., Respondent
EEOC Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001
NOTICE: This is a formal Rule to Show Cause and Notice of Adverse Inference regarding the EEOC’s failure to obtain and provide required information from Cox Communications, Inc. as mandated by federal law and EEOC procedures. This is the second notice, following the May 20, 2025 formal motion to disqualify the investigator and demand compliance.
I. NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE AND PROCEDURAL VIOLATION
The EEOC has failed to acknowledge or respond to my June 18, 2025 demand to halt any final determination pending submission of my evidentiary report. This silence violates:
- 29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(b): Mandating reconsideration for new evidence
- EEOC MD-110 § 2-302: Requiring supervisory review upon showing of error
- 5 U.S.C. § 555(e): Obligating agencies to respond to motions
NOTICE OF BAD FAITH AND ADVERSE INFERENCE:
You have had ample time and repeated notice to provide the required, signed, and complete position statement with all referenced attachments to the EEOC, as mandated by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)-(b) and EEOC policy. Submitting an unsigned position statement without supporting documentation—now more than 60 days past the April 15th deadline—is not only a clear violation of federal procedure but also constitutes bad faith under both EEOC standards and federal law.
An adverse inference is prudent and rightly placed: the EEOC, and any reviewing court, may conclude that the withheld or incomplete evidence would have been unfavorable to your position. See, e.g., Butler v. Department of Homeland Security, EEOC Appeal No. 07200900010 (May 27, 2010); Kirkendall v. Department of the Army, 573 F.3d 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(c).
UNITED STATES EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
II. URGENT REITERATION OF DEMANDS
I hereby reiterate and expand the demands of my June 18, 2025 letter:
- Immediately issue written acknowledgment of receipt of this demand and the June 18, 2025 letter
- Confirm in writing that no final determination will be issued until my evidentiary report is received and reviewed
- Designate a point of contact within 24 hours to coordinate submission of my report
- Provide a timeline for supervisory review of Investigator Perez's procedural violations
III. CONSEQUENCES OF FURTHER NON-COMPLIANCE
Failure to comply by 5:00 PM EDT on June 25, 2025 will result in:
- Formal complaint to the EEOC Office of Inspector General for dereliction of duty
- Motion for sanctions in potential judicial proceedings
- Inclusion in the U.S. Department of Justice's investigation of EEOC procedural violations
ADDENDUM: SHOW CAUSE FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE REQUIRED EVIDENCE
With Special Focus on Azariah Workman and Cox’s Pattern of Noncompliance
In addition to the statutory requirements and respondent obligations listed above, the following specific failures and contradictions are now entered into the record and must be addressed by Cox and the EEOC:
-
Retaliatory Payroll and Evaluation Actions by Azariah Workman:
On June 28, 2024, Ms. Workman promised paid leave for medical care, but within hours suspended pay, initiated a negative performance evaluation, and backdated records—all immediately after protected medical disclosure. No advance notice or opportunity to respond was given.
Proof: Workday and PeopleSoft logs, contemporaneous emails, HR ticket records.
-
Contradictions in Cox’s Position Statement:
Cox claimed “cooperation” and “no documentation provided” by the claimant, yet the record shows real-time disclosure and immediate adverse action by HR (Workman).
Proof: Timeline, system logs, and direct communications.
-
Failure to Provide Required Affidavits and Witness Support:
Cox did not submit affidavits or witness statements from Workman or supervisors, as required by MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11.
-
Absence of Signed, Complete Position Statement:
Cox’s statement was unsigned, lacked attachments, and did not include supporting documentation, as required by 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)-(b).
-
No Production of Payroll, Leave, or Comparative Records:
Despite statutory mandates, Cox did not produce payroll, leave, or comparator records—key for ADA and retaliation claims.
-
Failure to Respond to EEOC or Claimant Requests:
No evidence Cox responded to requests for clarification, records, or policy documents; EEOC failed to enforce these requests.
-
Executive Knowledge and Inaction:
Cox compliance officers and executives, including Ms. Painter, were copied on critical correspondence and failed to intervene, breaching statutory duties.
-
Systemic Pattern of Noncompliance:
This is not an isolated incident—Cox’s pattern of ignoring required EEOC submissions and failing to support assertions with evidence is now documented across multiple incidents.
-
EEOC’s Failure to Cure or Enforce Compliance:
The EEOC did not issue deficiency notices, compel proper submissions, or log evidence, compounding Cox’s violations and exposing both to adverse inference.
-
Legal and Evidentiary Impact:
Under EEOC guidance and Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c), all unsupported statements by Cox should be stricken, and adverse inference drawn for each failure to produce required evidence or respond to requests.
Special Notice Regarding Azariah Workman:
The record shows Ms. Workman’s direct involvement in payroll suspension and negative evaluation immediately following protected disclosure. This is classic “but-for” causation for retaliation under EEOC Enforcement Guidance and the ADA. The absence of any affidavit or explanation from Ms. Workman, despite repeated requests, is a critical procedural and evidentiary defect.
Requested Relief:
- Strike all unsupported or unsubstantiated statements from Cox’s position statement and the record.
- Order Cox to produce all required evidence, affidavits, and records as specified above.
- Draw adverse inference against Cox for each failure to comply and for each unsupported assertion.
- Refer the matter for supervisory and cross-agency review, including the conduct of Azariah Workman and Cox executives.
This addendum is to be attached to and considered part of the official record, with all legal force and effect.
References: 29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)-(b); MD-110 Ch. 6; EEOC Compliance Manual; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); [paste.txt]; [paste-2.txt]; [paste-5.txt]
Additional Notice: Any attempt to delay, partially acknowledge, or moot these motions by premature determination or Right-to-Sue letter will be challenged in federal court and reported to the Office of Inspector General as a violation of 29 C.F.R. § 1601.18(b), 5 U.S.C. § 555(b), and due process.
IV. ATTACHED: EEOC’S STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND RESPONDENT’S OBLIGATIONS
Required EEOC Requests to Respondent:
- Position Statement (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)): Respondent must submit a written, signed position statement addressing each allegation in the charge.
- Supporting Evidence (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b)): Respondent must provide supporting documents, data, and records validating their defenses.
- Affidavits or Sworn Statements (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): EEOC must request sworn statements from Respondent’s key witnesses, including decision-makers.
- Witness Contact Information (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Respondent must provide names, titles, and contact information for all involved parties.
- Personnel Records (29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(a)): Full employment, discipline, leave, and performance records must be provided for the Complainant and comparators.
- Comparative Evidence (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Respondent must submit evidence of how similarly situated employees were treated.
- Applicable Policies and Procedures (EEOC Charge Processing Manual Ch. 3 § 3.2): Respondent must provide written company policies, handbooks, and procedural documents in effect at the time.
- Payroll Records (29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(a)): Payroll and compensation records must be provided to verify wage discrimination, leave practices, or termination pay.
- Leave Records (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-9): Respondent must provide leave approvals, denials, and medical leave tracking for the relevant period.
- Training Records (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Records of EEO, ADA, and management training must be provided upon EEOC request.
- Internal Complaint History (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Respondent must disclose prior internal complaints of discrimination, retaliation, or similar allegations.
- Internal Investigation Results (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Respondent must submit records of any internal investigations related to the Complainant’s allegations.
- Organizational Charts (EEOC Best Practices): To establish reporting relationships, Respondent must submit organizational charts.
- Statistical Data (EEOC Charge Processing Manual Ch. 5 § 5.2): Respondent may be required to submit workforce demographic data if patterns of discrimination are alleged.
- Respondent’s Explanation of Employment Decision (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b)): EEOC requires a clear, detailed explanation of the legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for each adverse action.
- Documentation of Reasonable Accommodation Process (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Respondent must provide all interactive process records, communications, and decisions under the ADA.
- Documentation of Respondent’s Response to Requests for Accommodation (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b)): Respondent must provide evidence showing timely consideration and action on accommodation requests.
- Job Descriptions and Essential Functions (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Respondent must provide job descriptions relevant to disputed employment decisions.
- Respondent’s Attendance and Leave Policies (EEOC Best Practices): Required to evaluate alleged leave discrimination or discipline related to protected absences.
- Documentation of Disciplinary Actions (MD-110 Ch. 6 § 6-11): Respondent must provide evidence supporting any disciplinary or termination decisions.
- Prior Settlement Agreements (EEOC Best Practices): Respondent may be asked to provide prior agreements or outcomes in related complaints.
- Documents Related to Alleged Harassment (29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(b)): Any emails, texts, meeting notes, or communications tied to harassment claims must be submitted.
- Signed Certifications of Completeness (EEOC Charge Processing Manual Ch. 3 § 3.2): Respondent must certify that the information and documents submitted are complete and accurate.
- Supplemental Information Requests (EEOC Form 302 Requirement): Respondent must comply with any supplemental evidence requests, which are a standard part of EEOC investigations.
Key Statutory References:
29 C.F.R. § 1601.15(a)-(b) – Required submissions by Respondent
29 C.F.R. § 1601.16(a) – Authority to demand records and evidence
MD-110 Ch. 6 – Evidence collection and procedural integrity
EEOC Charge Processing Manual Ch. 3 & 5 – Standard case development and evidence protocols
V. FINAL NOTICE
My evidentiary report – containing VEC reversals, payroll fraud evidence, and witness testimony – is now complete. Its exclusion from the record would violate due process and warrant vacatur of any determination under Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970).