United's failure to adduce sufficient evidence to substantiate why they terminated FA Blockhus
with cause and has not substantiated that he was in fact, in violation of United’s Working Together Guidelines and Harassment policy.  If FA Blockhus's termination cannot be justified by legitimate reasons supported by evidence, then it give rise to suspicion of discriminatory motives.

United produced no evidence substantiating that a "Corrective Investigation Committee" reviewed the Lense case, however if this were true this committee would have rejected FA Blockhus's termination base of the following fact; 

FA Blockhus was medically unavailable to participate in any investigation until April 5, 2021, due to approved medical treatment.

• FA Blockhus was granted and approved for FMLA leave, which provided protected status during his absence from work.
• It was documented that Base Manager Monique Williams agreed to postpone or “recalculate” the handling of the Lense matter until Mr. Blockhus returned from FMLA leave.
• FA Blockhus was never interviewed during the investigation, despite interviews being routinely afforded to other employees facing allegations.
• Not all relevant facts could have been collected or fairly evaluated without FA Blockhus’s participation in the investigative process.
• There is no documentation demonstrating that a complete or independent investigation was ever conducted.
• Documents and screenshots produced by Ms. Lense were accepted by United without meaningful challenge, verification, or authentication.
• The origin of  FA Lense’s text message evidence was never identified or connected to FA Blockhus.
• FA Blockhus’s phone records and activity logs were produced and forensically examined yet there 
  is no evidence establishing a connection between his device and the alleged text messages.
• Phone records demonstrated repeated contact initiated by FA Lense following the period in which she claimed harassment occurred.
• More than 500 calls or contact attempts from FA Lense to FA Blockhus were documented during the relevant period, undermining claims of avoidance or fear.
• A key witness provided sworn testimony and written statements relevant to the allegations, yet that testimony was not meaningfully incorporated into the investigation.
• Complaints filed by FA Blockhus and a co-worker regarding FA Lense’s alleged harassment were not investigated.
• United’s Ethics Department reportedly closed complaints regarding FA Lense within one day, raising concerns regarding unequal treatment and investigative inconsistency.
• The investigation proceeded despite documented acknowledgment that FA Blockhus was “unavailable” and that the matter was to be postponed.
• United relied upon allegations of contact with FA Lense before issuing any formal directive prohibiting such contact.
• No evidence has been produced showing that United reconciled contradictory statements.
• FA Lense acknowledged in her own statements that her primary concern was protecting her job, sexual harassment.
• FA Lense admitted that she did not feel physically threatened, which is inconsistent with the severity of allegations later relied upon for termination.
• Recorded communications and documented interactions indicate that contact between the parties continued voluntarily during the timeframe in question.
• Evidence reflecting an ongoing personal relationship into late 2020 was not fully reconciled with the allegations later advanced.
• United proceeded with termination while FA Blockhus remained on approved FMLA leave and medically unable to attend the scheduled investigatory meeting.
• No completed mediation, arbitration conclusion, or final dispute-resolution process was reached.
• United’s justification relied in part on an “honest belief” defense, despite unresolved factual disputes and an incomplete investigation.
• The Company relied on allegations that were never independently corroborated through objective evidence.
• Exculpatory evidence—including phone records, witness testimony, and timeline inconsistencies—was not meaningfully addressed in the final decision-making process.
• The investigation did not provide equal consideration to allegations made against FA Lense, despite multiple reports and supporting evidence.
• These facts collectively reveal significant gaps, inconsistencies, and procedural deficiencies in United’s handling of the investigation and termination process, raising serious questions regarding fairness, contractual compliance, and due process.
  
  Without evidence substantiating the involvement of a Corrective Investigation Committee and
  adherence to proper procedures, United's termination decision appears arbitrary and unsupported. The failure to interview FA Blockhus, verify documents, and establish the origin of key evidence raises serious questions about the validity of the termination. These discrepancies highlight the need for a comprehensive review of United's actions and decisions in this case and FA Blockhus should be allowed to return back to his twenty-four year career.
  If United claims that FA Blockhus was not meeting their expectations at the time of his termination, it is their burden to provide evidence supporting this assertion. Simply making the claim without substantiating evidence does not meet the standard required in legal proceedings.
  United Airlines, as a large conglomerate, wields significant power and influence, which may
  lead them to believe they can make decisions with impunity, confident that individual employees lack the means to challenge them.