When Allegations Replace Evidence,
The Investigation That Never Happened
The TRUE and Proven FACTS
BLOCKHUS
VS.
UNITED AIRLINES Inc.
MISSION STATEMENT
Regarding Public Disclosure and Setting the Record Straight
Disclaimer:
Any references made to United Airlines throughout this website and related materials are not intended to reflect upon the company as a whole, its employees generally, or the many dedicated individuals who work for the airline. Rather, the concerns and criticisms expressed relate specifically to the actions, decisions, and conduct of certain individuals allegedly involved in the investigation and handling of FA Blockhus’s case. FA Blockhus remains proud of his long career with United Airlines and continues to respect the many employees and colleagues with whom he worked throughout his nearly twenty-five years of service .
FA Blockhus was a proud and dedicated employee of United Airlines for nearly twenty-five years and genuinely loved both his profession and the airline he represented. Throughout his career, he took pride in serving passengers, supporting his fellow crew members, and representing United with professionalism and commitment. His long tenure, numerous commendations, and continued dedication reflected not only his work ethic, but also the deep respect and loyalty he had for his job and the company he considered a major part of his life and identity.
The purpose of publicly disclosing information related to this matter is not sensationalism, retaliation, or personal attack. Rather, the goal is to bring attention to what are serious procedural failures involving both the investigation conducted by United Airlines supervisors and the subsequent grievance process.
Significant questions remain regarding the fairness, completeness, and integrity of the process that led to the termination of his twenty-four-year career. These concerns include, among other things, the decision to proceed with the investigation while he was on approved FMLA leave, the failure to interview him prior to termination, the reliance on disputed and unauthenticated evidence, and the failure to fully address contractual and grievance-related protections.
The information being shared publicly is intended to provide context, documentation, and transparency regarding these concerns so that the matter may receive meaningful review and reconsideration. FA Blockhus believes that important facts and procedural issues were overlooked or insufficiently examined, and that public disclosure is necessary to ensure the record reflects the full circumstances surrounding the case.
The objective is not to inflame or sensationalize the dispute, but to encourage fair review, accountability, and informed evaluation of the underlying process and evidence. FA Blockhus continues to seek a constructive resolution and hopes that increased awareness of the procedural concerns involved may ultimately lead to a renewed and impartial review of the case.
The decision for FA Blockhus to go public with his wrongful termination case and as well as personal and intimate information about his relationship with co-worker and false accuser, Katherine Lense publicly was not made lightly. It comes only after years of having to live with a false narrative that was not only created by Katherine Lense, but more so, by United management personnel in positions of power, namely Frank Hester, John McCormick , and Kayla Howell who had the power to fire whomever they please even though a case is incomplete, misleading, and inconsistent with the full factual record. When allegations and public perceptions significantly affect a person’s reputation, career, and personal life, there comes a point where remaining silent is no longer a reasonable option.
Once again FA Blockhus purpose in making this information available to AFA members as well as the public is to provide context, documentation, and evidence that were ignored, suppressed, overlooked, mischaracterized, and excluded from prior discussions of this matter. By presenting the timeline, communications, records, and supporting materials, FA Blockhus intend to ensure that not only the general public, but all his co-workers and flying partners at United Airlines, has access to a more complete understanding of the events in question, CBA violations, and the injustice that befell upon him by United junior management.
The information being shared within this site reflects an attempt to correct the record, explain his position, and document the circumstances that contributed to an inaccurate portrayal of events. After years of fighting for justice, suffering personal, professional, financial, and emotional consequences, it is believed that it is important to present the facts as and allow others to review the evidence in its full context.
Ultimately, this effort is about reclaiming FA Blockhus’s voice, preserving his perspective, and seeking restoration of a career that was wrongfully taken from him after nearly twenty-five years of service. FA Blockhus maintains that the narrative surrounding his termination was shaped by incomplete information, procedural failures, and the actions of a small number of individuals within United management whose decisions and handling of the investigation did not reflect the full factual record.
For years, false, incomplete, and misleading information has circulated online, creating a narrative that does not reflect the full evidentiary record. This has had lasting personal and professional consequences. He is committed to correcting that record by presenting verifiable facts, documented evidence, and a complete account of events. This effort is grounded in the belief that truth, accountability, and fairness are essential, and that no individual should have to endure the long-term impact of misinformation without the opportunity to set the record straight.
Throughout the last five years, FA Blockhus has remained persistent in seeking a fair outcome—not out of anger, but out of a belief that the process should be accurate, complete, and just. He has continued to gather evidence, pursue answers, and present his case in a professional and consistent manner.
This has not been a short or simple dispute. It has been a prolonged experience that has affected every aspect of his life—professionally, financially, and personally. All he has sought is the opportunity for the matter to be reviewed fairly, based on a complete and accurate record, and resolved in a way that reflects what actually occurred.
Rather than serving as an impartial decision-maker, United supervisors acted as an advocate for the complainant, rendering the investigation biased, one-sided, and procedurally invalid under the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s due-process and just-cause requirements.
Mr. Blockhus remains committed to seeing this through to a just resolution.
Those Involved
FA BLOCKHUS WAS BLINDSIDDED
- NO VISIBLE PHONE NUMBER
- NO DATE/YEAR
- NO COLLABORATING WITNESSES
- NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE
- CONFLICTING SWORN TESTIMONY BY THE ACCUSER
- THE ACCUSSED WAS NEVER INTERVIEWED
Presented throughout this informational website, the evidence will demonstrate that Frank Hester, John McCormick, and Katherine Lense knowingly presented false, misleading, and materially incomplete statements that distorted the factual record and undermined the integrity of the proceedings against FA Blockhus. Their actions, viewed collectively and in context with the documented evidence, reflect a deliberate effort to shape a predetermined narrative while disregarding contradictory facts, witness testimony, and exculpatory evidence.
The information presented herein raises serious concerns regarding the fairness, objectivity, and legitimacy of the investigation and disciplinary process relied upon to justify FA Blockhus’s termination. Rather than conducting a thorough and impartial investigation grounded in verified evidence, the record reflects repeated inconsistencies, selective omissions, failures to authenticate key allegations, and the apparent acceptance of unsupported claims without meaningful scrutiny. The cumulative effect of these actions created a false and misleading portrayal of events that was ultimately used to justify an outcome unsupported by the actual evidentiary record.
Specifically, statements attributed to these individuals distorted the nature of the alleged conduct, improperly framed communications as threatening when they were not, and ignored or excluded evidence that directly contradicted the narrative being advanced. In multiple instances, language was taken out of context or presented in a way that materially altered its meaning, creating a misleading impression of events that did not accurately reflect reality.
Additionally, evidence favorable to FA Blockhus—including communications, records, and contextual information—was either disregarded or not meaningfully considered. This selective treatment of evidence resulted in a one-sided account that lacked objectivity and fairness.
The cumulative effect of these actions was to create a narrative that supported a predetermined outcome rather than an accurate and impartial assessment of the facts. When individuals responsible for reporting and evaluating evidence present information in a manner that omits key details, exaggerates certain elements, or mischaracterizes statements, it undermines the integrity of the entire investigative process.
These actions raise serious concerns regarding the reliability of the conclusions reached in this case. A fair and credible investigation requires that all evidence be presented accurately, in context, and without bias. Where that standard is not met, any resulting disciplinary action cannot be considered reliable or supported by the record.
Accordingly, the statements and representations made by Frank Hester, John McCormick, and Katherine Lense cannot be relied upon as a truthful or complete account of the events in question. Their actions contributed directly to a flawed and misleading record, which in turn formed the basis for an unjust and unsupported outcome.
United Airlines Inc.
Frank Hester
Was acting junior supervisor now back as a junior Flight Attendant
FA Derek Blockhus
John McCormick
The Lead "Investigator"
Supervisor Kayla Howell
FA Katherine Lense,
False Accuser
Pattern and Practice of Inconsistent Discipline and Procedural Irregularities
In FA Blockhus’s case, the surrounding circumstances reflect a series of significant procedural irregularities that collectively call into question the fairness and reliability of the disciplinary process used to justify his termination.
First, the investigation deviated from ordinary and expected practice in a critical respect: FA Blockhus was never interviewed. This was not a minor procedural oversight. The lead investigator himself acknowledged under oath that he never interviewed or spoke with FA Blockhus during the course of the investigation. Despite this extraordinary omission, investigator, John McCormick nevertheless proceeded to make credibility determinations, factual conclusions, then a temporary junior supervisor (actually a flight attendant now ) Frank Hester ultimately terminate a twenty-four-year employee without ever allowing him the opportunity to fully participate in the process or respond directly to the allegations against him.
Second, the disciplinary decision relied heavily upon evidence that was never properly authenticated or independently verified. The alleged text messages attributed to FA Blockhus were
accepted without:
1. A Phone Number
2. A Full Date
3. A Collaborating Witness
4. Circumstantial Evidence
5. Just Minutes Following FA Blockhus Informing FA Lense She would be Reported for Harassment.
6. Forensic validation
7. Metadata analysis,
or objective verification linking the communications to his phone, SIM card, or accounts. At the same time, available forensic and objective investigative methods capable of confirming or disproving authorship were either not utilized or not meaningfully pursued prior to termination. This failure is particularly significant given the seriousness of the allegations and the severe consequences resulting from them.
Third, the investigation proceeded while FA Blockhus was medically unavailable and on approved FMLA leave. United management had previously acknowledged that FA Blockhus was “unavailable” and agreed that the investigation would be postponed until the conclusion of his leave. Nevertheless, the process continued in his absence, effectively depriving him of the ability to participate meaningfully in the investigation, present evidence, respond to allegations, or assist in the development of the factual record. Proceeding under these circumstances undermined the integrity of the investigative process and deprived FA Blockhus of fundamental procedural fairness.
Additionally, comparable conduct and evidence involving the complainant, FA Lense, was not subjected to the same level of scrutiny, investigation, or discipline. Complaints and evidence submitted regarding FA Lense’s conduct were reportedly closed quickly or not meaningfully investigated, despite the existence of witness statements, communications, and other evidence that FA Blockhus believes were highly relevant to the overall circumstances of the dispute. This disparity in treatment raises serious concerns regarding selective enforcement and uneven application of workplace policies and investigative standards.
Taken together, these facts reflect more than an isolated oversight or inadvertent procedural error. Rather, they demonstrate a pattern of inconsistent application of policy, deviation from established procedures, and unequal treatment during the investigative and disciplinary process.
Courts and labor arbitrators have long recognized that when an employer applies disciplinary procedures unevenly, departs from established investigative standards without justification, or fails to follow its own procedural safeguards, the legitimacy and reliability of the resulting disciplinary action is substantially undermined. Consistency, neutrality, and procedural fairness are essential components of any just-cause determination, particularly where severe disciplinary action is involved.
Here, United’s supervisor's actions reflect:
- selective enforcement of workplace policies,
- failure to adhere to consistent investigative standards,
- reliance upon disputed and unauthenticated evidence,
- and departure from established procedural safeguards and contractual protections.
These concerns are especially significant given FA Blockhus’s status as a long-tenured employee with nearly twenty-four years of service and a documented history of commendations and positive employment recognition. In cases involving employees with longstanding careers and substantial reputational and professional consequences, strict adherence to due process and investigative fairness is essential.
Accordingly, the facts surrounding this matter support the conclusion that FA Blockhus’s termination was not the product of a fair, consistent, or reliable investigative process, but rather resulted from procedural irregularities, inconsistent enforcement, and departures from established standards that undermine any legitimate finding of just cause.
United cannot overcome their nondiscriminatory reasons for terminating Blockhus or demonstrate that it was not pretextual.
United's inability to produce evidence substantiating their claims against FA Blockhus is deeply
concerning. Despite their repeated assertions that FA Blockhus "admitted guilt," United has failed
to provide any concrete evidence to support this claim. Additionally, they have not identified the
origin of the text messages allegedly sent by FA Blockhus, further undermining their allegations.
This lack of evidence raises significant doubts about the validity of United's case and suggests that
FA Blockhus's termination was both unjustified and conducted without a fair and thorough
investigation combined with United's admission to FMLA violations, clearly indicates that FA
Blockhus was not only wrongfully terminated but that this termination was conducted with bias
and discrimination.