.




.Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction RE: Re: Thomas Coates vs. Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC
Inbox

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Mon, Apr 14, 12:52 PM
to NORFGOV@eeoc.gov, ALEXANDER
Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction**

Dear Investigator Perez,

Thank you for your continued attention and support regarding my charges against Cox Communications (Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001). I appreciate the EEOC's commitment to investigating matters of discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.

To ensure clarity and facilitate your ongoing investigation, I wish to reiterate that my charges include allegations related to the following five key areas, which fall squarely within the EEOC’s purview:

1.  **Disparate Treatment:** Evidence demonstrates that I have been treated differently from similarly situated employees due to my disability and/or protected activities. This includes denials of reasonable accommodations, restrictions on access to HR systems, and inconsistencies in the application of company policies.
2.  **Failure to Accommodate:** Cox Communications has failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process to identify and implement reasonable accommodations for my disability, in violation of the ADA.
3.  **Retaliation:** I have experienced adverse actions, including changes to performance evaluations and other retaliatory measures, as a direct result of my complaints about discrimination and my cooperation with federal investigations.
4.  **Hostile Work Environment:** I have been subjected to ongoing harassment and a hostile work environment based on my disability and protected activities.
5.  **Wage Discrimination:** There is evidence suggesting that I have not received equal pay or benefits compared to similarly situated employees and due to my disability and protected activities.

I remain committed to providing all necessary documentation and information to support these claims. I am confident that a thorough investigation will reveal violations of federal law and that the EEOC has the expertise and authority to address these issues effectively.

Thank you again for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Thomas Coates

ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Mon, Apr 14, 1:09 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Mr. Coates,

In your rebuttal, please only address the EEOC jurisdictional issues. Anything else will not be considered by this agency.

 

Thank you.

...

[Message clipped]  View entire message

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Apr 14, 2025, 1:23 PM
to ALEXANDER, tdcoates@googlemail.com
Dear Mr. Perez,

I understand, and I appreciate the clarification.

Thank you for your support, your expertise, and the important work your agency does in upholding civil rights.

Sincerely,
Thomas Coates
.
.  



.From: Thomas - <tdcoates@gmail.com>

Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 3:33 PM
To: ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@EEOC.GOV>
Subject: 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: RE: EEOC Charge Investigation

Dear Mr. Perez,

Thank you for reaching out regarding my charge. I appreciate your assistance and would be happy to speak with you on the phone next Wednesday. I am generally available anytime between 10:00 AM and 1:00 PM. Please let me know which time works best for you, and if necessary, we can coordinate a different time that suits your schedule.

In the meantime, I may have additional evidence to upload between now and Wednesday. Would you prefer that I continue to upload this evidence to the EEOC portal, or is there another process you would like me to follow?

I look forward to speaking with you and providing any additional information you may need.

Sincerely,

 

Thomas Coates

 

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 3:11 PM ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov> wrote:

Mr. Coates,

I have been assigned to investigate your charge referenced above. Please reply to this email and give me a good time to speak with you on the phone next Wednesday. I would like to conduct an interview so that I can get all the facts in order and address the issues that EEOC has jurisdiction over in your charge.

 

I look forward to speaking with you soon.

 

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

 

One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
invite.ics Download

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

AttachmentsMar 19, 2025, 12:41 PM
to ALEXANDER
Hi Alex, 
One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
 

ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Mar 19, 2025, 12:54 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Email me what you have. I have to reboot my system. Not sure if that is me or your connection. I will follow up with you when I receive a response from Respondent.

I am going to see if they would be willing to entertain an early resolution as discussed.

 

Thanks

 

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

 

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Mar 19, 2025, 1:03 PM
to ALEXANDER
Great Alex,

Would be interested in getting the information which will outfit you for:  "I am going to see if they would be willing to entertain an early resolution as discussed."

I am going to be sending the information to you by replying to this same email thread...Thank you so much and more to follow.  ps.  I follow directions well, so anything that you need, only ask!

Thank you Alex!  For your time and expertise.

Thomas Coates

ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Mar 24, 2025, 3:10 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Mr. Coates,

Cox has expressed their interest to resolve this matter. I note, not because they believe that a violation of EEOC laws is clear here. Rather, they believe that the mediation process was not conducted in a good faith effort. Respondent has the position that they went into mediation with the intension to negotiate with you on a fair number in regard to the EEOC claim. Any other issues that are not relevant to EEOC were not being considered at that time. Which is why their number was what it was. They had hoped that you would counter a fair number there and the parties could negotiate a fair resolution.

I have been informed that their counter to your 48-50K proposal is 15K. If you want to discuss this over the phone, it would be helpful. I believe you and I spoke over the phone and I shared what you would more than likely get in a settlement here. I still believe that we would be able to resolve this matter for 40K.

Mr. Coates, based on the allegations, I believe that this is a good number. If you are willing to accept 40K, I think we can get this done soon.

Please let me know if 40K in wages is agreeable.

 

 

Alex

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Mar 24, 2025, 5:29 PM
to ALEXANDER
 

Re: Coates v. Cox Communications – Discovery Prior to Final Negotiation

Dear Alex,

Thank you again for your continued engagement. I’m writing to formally propose a targeted discovery window before concluding any final negotiation.

Rationale for Discovery

Cox’s current offer appears designed to sidestep not only the core EEOC issues but a larger set of interwoven violations—ADA, FMLA, payroll integrity, healthcare continuity, and retaliation among them.

A limited discovery phase would clarify key facts before closure and ensure any resolution aligns with the actual scope of harm.

This avoids premature settlement on partial terms that may not even hold up under further scrutiny—by this agency, or others.

Key Discovery Items Requested

  1. Audit trail of all employment record changes during and after STD leave (Workday logs).
  2. STD and payroll disbursement breakdowns including discrepancies or reversals.
  3. Internal communications regarding cancellation of medical coverage on November 22, 2024.
  4. Supervisor directives blocking leave for dependent care, especially from non-managers.
  5. List of all complaints filed by me, with status and resolution trail.
  6. Commission tracking reports and override records related to compensation accuracy.
  7. Any state or federal agency filings where Cox reported altered wage or separation data.
  8. Documents that explain or justify termination despite protected leave under federal law.

Baseline Compensation Context

My base salary was $48,000. Health benefits continuation through COBRA was quoted between $1,200–$1,600/month, placing total value between $62,000–$67,000/year.

This is important not just as compensation—but because these benefits were cut off mid-disability without notice, which speaks directly to retaliation and lack of accommodation.

Opportunity for Resolution

I remain open to a resolution—but only one that is compelling, complete, and reflective of the full circumstances.

If Cox truly seeks resolution, they can demonstrate good faith now by making an offer consistent with my actual harm, not a limited procedural frame.

I trust that your office would be required to report back if an offer appears to preempt accountability for serious conduct.

I appreciate your attention and hope this path forward brings clarity for all parties—while preserving the integrity of the process.

Respectfully,
Thomas D. Coates

.

ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Mar 24, 2025, 5:41 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Mr. Coates,

As I said, this negotiation is in regard to the EEOC claims only. Essentially the ADA claim you have in your charge. There is no discovery window or phase in this investigation. This is an administrative process. You are referring to a litigation process that is much later on if and when you hire an attorney and go to court.

Cox is doing what all mediations do, negotiate. It seems as though they are betting on that your ADA claims will not reach 40K in damages.

If you do not want to proceed with a counter, I am going to terminate settlement options and move to investigating this matter.

Please consider 40K. I have not seen that amount being a result of any cause termination for a simple ADA confidentiality cause finding. You may end up with significantly less at the end of this process later on.

ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Mar 24, 2025, 5:47 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Mr. Coates,

In two days your charge will be 180 days old. You can request your Right to Sue now if you wish to proceed to court within 90 days. Rather than put the parties through a long investigation, you can expedite seeking damages through the courts if you wish by sending me a request for Right to Sue.

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Mar 24, 2025, 5:57 PM
to ALEXANDER


To: Alexander Perez
Subject: Response to Offer – Coates v. Cox

Dear Mr. Perez,

Thank you for your continued communication.

After considering Cox’s position and the scope of the evidence now emerging across multiple channels, I am submitting a counteroffer of $60,000 (with taxes included) to resolve the EEOC matter.

This is based not only on the ADA violations described in my charge, but also on the growing body of evidence tied to related agency matters—including events and records that will be introduced under oath at the April 1st VEC hearing. That hearing will include direct testimony regarding accommodations, benefits termination, retaliation, and payroll integrity, and it will trigger a formal record of statements that I will ask to be incorporated into the EEOC’s investigative file.

If we are not able to resolve this matter at this stage, I understand you will proceed to full investigation, and I am fully prepared to support that process. I simply wanted to provide a clear opportunity now to resolve this efficiently, fairly, and with finality.

Please let me know your response.

Sincerely,
Thomas D. Coates


ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Mar 24, 2025, 6:02 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Mr. Coates,

I am terminating this settlement process. Respondent considered your last offer which was between 48-52K which they declined. It would make no sense for them to agree on your current offer of 60K.

I will release the company’s response to our charge once we receive it. Please be advised that EEOC will only be investigating EEOC matter. We do not have the interest or jurisdiction to even discuss non-jurisdictional issues you raise in your charge.

Again, if you want to request your Right to Sue so that you may address all claims in court and resolve outside of EEOC, please let me know. I will be happy to grant your request.

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Mar 24, 2025, 6:12 PM
to ALEXANDER

To: Alexander Perez

Subject: Upcoming Summary & Request for Continued Investigation

Dear Mr. Perez,

Thank you for your communication today. While I acknowledge your decision to terminate the current settlement process, I want to make it clear that I will be compiling a comprehensive letter summarizing our discussions, proposals, and the issues raised. This letter will be formally addressed to Cox’s legal counsel and to the EEOC for the case file, with you copied for transparency and continuity.

The letter will outline all relevant matters discussed today, including but not limited to:

  • The scope and valuation of the ADA-related claims;
  • The procedural context surrounding the settlement discussions;
  • The documentation and sworn testimony anticipated in the VEC proceedings on April 1st;
  • The broader pattern of behavior and evidence supporting systemic violations, which I believe fall within EEOC interest and jurisdiction.

In parallel, I would like to formally request that you proceed with a full and thorough EEOC investigation. I am prepared to provide extensive evidence—both documentary and testimonial—to support the charge and demonstrate patterns of conduct relevant to ADA protections and potential retaliation.

Please keep me informed as Cox’s formal response is received. I will ensure that any subsequent communications and materials are appropriately shared and documented in the charge file.



.

Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction RE: Re: Thomas Coates vs. Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC

Inbox

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Apr 14, 2025, 12:52 PM
to NORFGOV@eeoc.gov, ALEXANDER
Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction**

Dear Investigator Perez,

Thank you for your continued attention and support regarding my charges against Cox Communications (Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001). I appreciate the EEOC's commitment to investigating matters of discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.

To ensure clarity and facilitate your ongoing investigation, I wish to reiterate that my charges include allegations related to the following five key areas, which fall squarely within the EEOC’s purview:

1.  **Disparate Treatment:** Evidence demonstrates that I have been treated differently from similarly situated employees due to my disability and/or protected activities. This includes denials of reasonable accommodations, restrictions on access to HR systems, and inconsistencies in the application of company policies.
2.  **Failure to Accommodate:** Cox Communications has failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process to identify and implement reasonable accommodations for my disability, in violation of the ADA.
3.  **Retaliation:** I have experienced adverse actions, including changes to performance evaluations and other retaliatory measures, as a direct result of my complaints about discrimination and my cooperation with federal investigations.
4.  **Hostile Work Environment:** I have been subjected to ongoing harassment and a hostile work environment based on my disability and protected activities.
5.  **Wage Discrimination:** There is evidence suggesting that I have not received equal pay or benefits compared to similarly situated employees and due to my disability and protected activities.

I remain committed to providing all necessary documentation and information to support these claims. I am confident that a thorough investigation will reveal violations of federal law and that the EEOC has the expertise and authority to address these issues effectively.

Thank you again for your continued support.

Sincerely,

Thomas Coates

ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Apr 14, 2025, 12:54 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Mr. Coates,

Please do not include any other email addresses in your correspondence to me. As I asked before, I am in the investigator in this matter. Any other email addresses you include may not be monitored during open investigations. As I stated before also, you may upload communications into the portal directly.

Regard this email below, is this your rebuttal? Or am I waiting for more from you?

 

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, April 14, 2025 12:53 PM
To: NORFGOV <NORFGOV@eeoc.gov>; ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@EEOC.GOV>
Subject: Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction RE: Re: Thomas Coates vs. Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC

 

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.

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Apr 14, 2025, 1:07 PM
to ALEXANDER


Subject: Status of Rebuttal – EEOC Charge

Dear Mr. Perez,

Thank you for your message.

To clarify, the communication you referenced is not my formal rebuttal. I am currently working with several other agencies to ensure that all relevant facts, timelines, and legal considerations are fully aligned before submitting my response.

At this point, I anticipate that my formal rebuttal will be ready for submission by the first or second week of May. I will upload it directly to the EEOC portal at that time, in accordance with your instructions.

Thank you for your continued oversight and patience.

Sincerely,
Thomas Coates

ALEXANDER PEREZ ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov

Apr 14, 2025, 1:09 PM
to tdcoates@googlemail.com

Mr. Coates,

In your rebuttal, please only address the EEOC jurisdictional issues. Anything else will not be considered by this agency.

 

Thank you.

...

[Message clipped]  View entire message

Thomas - tdcoates@gmail.com

Apr 14, 2025, 1:23 PM
to ALEXANDER, tdcoates@googlemail.com
Dear Mr. Perez,

I understand, and I appreciate the clarification.

Thank you for your support, your expertise, and the important work your agency does in upholding civil rights.

Sincerely,
Thomas Coates
.. 

Thomas Coates <tdcoates@gmail.com>
Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction RE: Re: Thomas Coates vs. Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC
ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov>Mon, Apr 14, 2025 at 1:09 PM
To: "tdcoates@googlemail.com" <tdcoates@googlemail.com>

Mr. Coates,

In your rebuttal, please only address the EEOC jurisdictional issues. Anything else will not be considered by this agency.

 

Thank you.

 

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, April 14, 2025 1:08 PM
To: ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@EEOC.GOV>
Subject: Re: Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction RE: Re: Thomas Coates vs. Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC

 

 

Subject: Status of Rebuttal – EEOC Charge

Dear Mr. Perez,

Thank you for your message.

To clarify, the communication you referenced is not my formal rebuttal. I am currently working with several other agencies to ensure that all relevant facts, timelines, and legal considerations are fully aligned before submitting my response.

At this point, I anticipate that my formal rebuttal will be ready for submission by the first or second week of May. I will upload it directly to the EEOC portal at that time, in accordance with your instructions.

Thank you for your continued oversight and patience.

Sincerely,
Thomas Coates

 


On Monday, April 14, 2025, ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@eeoc.gov> wrote:

Mr. Coates,

Please do not include any other email addresses in your correspondence to me. As I asked before, I am in the investigator in this matter. Any other email addresses you include may not be monitored during open investigations. As I stated before also, you may upload communications into the portal directly.

Regard this email below, is this your rebuttal? Or am I waiting for more from you?

 

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, April 14, 2025 12:53 PM
To: NORFGOV <NORFGOV@eeoc.gov>; ALEXANDER PEREZ <ALEXANDER.PEREZ@EEOC.GOV>
Subject: Subject: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction RE: Re: Thomas Coates vs. Cox Communications Hampton Roads, LLC

 

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: Continued Cooperation and Clarification of Jurisdiction**

 

Dear Investigator Perez,

 

Thank you for your continued attention and support regarding my charges against Cox Communications (Charge No.: 12K-2025-00001). I appreciate the EEOC's commitment to investigating matters of discrimination and retaliation in the workplace.

 

To ensure clarity and facilitate your ongoing investigation, I wish to reiterate that my charges include allegations related to the following five key areas, which fall squarely within the EEOC’s purview:

 

1.  **Disparate Treatment:** Evidence demonstrates that I have been treated differently from similarly situated employees due to my disability and/or protected activities. This includes denials of reasonable accommodations, restrictions on access to HR systems, and inconsistencies in the application of company policies.

2.  **Failure to Accommodate:** Cox Communications has failed to engage in a good-faith interactive process to identify and implement reasonable accommodations for my disability, in violation of the ADA.

3.  **Retaliation:** I have experienced adverse actions, including changes to performance evaluations and other retaliatory measures, as a direct result of my complaints about discrimination and my cooperation with federal investigations.

4.  **Hostile Work Environment:** I have been subjected to ongoing harassment and a hostile work environment based on my disability and protected activities.

5.  **Wage Discrimination:** There is evidence suggesting that I have not received equal pay or benefits compared to similarly situated employees and due to my disability and protected activities.

 

I remain committed to providing all necessary documentation and information to support these claims. I am confident that a thorough investigation will reveal violations of federal law and that the EEOC has the expertise and authority to address these issues effectively.

 

Thank you again for your continued support.

 

Sincerely,

 

Thomas Coates


..  


.

.