The circumstances surrounding FA Blockhus’s termination strongly support the conclusion that the stated reasons for his discharge were pretextual rather than the product of a fair, objective, and properly conducted investigation. In employment law, pretext exists when an employer’s stated justification for termination is not the true reason for the adverse action, or when the employer’s explanation is inconsistent, unsupported by evidence, selectively enforced, or contradicted by the surrounding facts and procedures. Here, the record reflects numerous irregularities and inconsistencies that collectively undermine the legitimacy of United’s stated rationale for terminating a nearly twenty-five-year employee.

Most significantly, United proceeded with the investigation and disciplinary process while FA Blockhus was on approved FMLA leave and medically unavailable to participate. The company had already acknowledged his medical unavailability and reportedly agreed to postpone the investigation until the completion of his treatment and protected leave period. A directive was circulated indicating that FA Blockhus was “unavailable,” yet despite this acknowledgment, United (Jr. employee Frank Hester) continued the disciplinary process in his absence and ultimately terminated him while he remained on protected leave. This sequence of events strongly suggests that the company’s (Jr. employee Frank Hester) stated reasons for termination were not independent from his FMLA status, but instead intertwined with his inability to participate due to his protected medical leave.

Further supporting a finding of pretext is the fact that FA Blockhus was never interviewed during the investigation. This extraordinary omission was later acknowledged under oath by the lead investigator,  himself, John McCormick. Despite the seriousness of the allegations and the severe consequences at stake, United (Frank Hester)made credibility determinations and terminated a long-tenured employee without ever obtaining his direct account of the events or allowing him a meaningful opportunity to respond. A reasonable and impartial investigation would ordinarily include an interview of the accused employee, especially where factual disputes and conflicting evidence existed. The failure to conduct such a basic investigative step raises substantial concerns that the outcome had effectively been predetermined.

The evidentiary foundation relied upon by United (Jr. employee Frank Hester) also reflects significant signs of pretext. The alleged threatening text messages attributed to FA Blockhus were never properly authenticated or objectively verified. No forensic analysis established that the messages originated from his devices, accounts, or phone number.  Moreover, FA Blockhus voluntarily subjected his SIM card and mobile data to professional forensic examination, yet no evidence was produced conclusively linking him to the alleged communications. Despite these deficiencies, United (Jr. employee Frank Hester) nevertheless treated the allegations as established fact while disregarding contradictory evidence and unresolved evidentiary concerns.

The company’s (Jr. employee Frank Hester) treatment of other relevant evidence further supports the conclusion that the investigation was selective and outcome-driven. Evidence and complaints involving FA Lense’s own conduct—including witness testimony, communications, and allegations of harassment toward Mr. Blockhus and co-worker —were allegedly not subjected to the same level of scrutiny or investigation. This uneven application of investigative standards reflects selective enforcement and inconsistent treatment of the parties involved.

Additionally, United (Jr. employee Frank Hester) repeatedly characterized FA Blockhus’s voicemail communications as “threats,” despite the surrounding context indicating that he was attempting to resolve a workplace dispute and informing FA Lense that continued issues would be reported to Human Resources. The company’s  (Jr. employee Frank Hester) interpretation of these communications appears inconsistent with the actual content and tone described by those who reviewed them. At the same time, United (Jr. employee Frank Hester) allegedly ignored evidence favorable to FA Blockhus, including the continued contact initiated by FA Lense, evidence of an ongoing relationship, and testimony indicating that FA Lense herself stated she was primarily concerned about protecting her job rather than fearing harassment.