In the litigation arising from FA Blockhus’s termination, styled Blockhus v. United Airlines, Inc., Case No. 1:22-cv-03867 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, United Airlines ultimately relied upon the “honest belief” doctrine and the assertion that FA Blockhus “would have been fired anyway” as primary defenses to justify the termination decision.

These arguments were advanced by United in its summary judgment filings and related briefing submitted to the District Court. Rather than relying upon direct, verified, and conclusive evidence establishing misconduct through a complete and procedurally sound investigation, United argued that management possessed an “honest belief” that FA Blockhus engaged in misconduct and further asserted that the outcome would have been the same regardless of any alleged procedural deficiencies. This defense is not supported by FA BLockhus written CBA contract.

Specifically, United’s summary judgment position focused heavily on the notion that even if aspects of the investigation or process were disputed, the Company believed in good faith that FA Blockhus violated company policy and therefore termination was justified. United additionally argued that FA Blockhus “would have been terminated anyway,” even absent certain disputed circumstances, effectively asking the court to excuse procedural irregularities and investigative deficiencies on the grounds that the final outcome allegedly would not have changed.

FA Blockhus maintains that the Company’s reliance on these defenses is highly significant because it demonstrates the absence of a complete, reliable, and procedurally fair investigative process. Rather than pointing to conclusive authenticated evidence and a fully developed investigation in which FA Blockhus was allowed meaningful participation, United instead relied upon legal doctrines designed to shield employment decisions from scrutiny even where factual disputes and procedural irregularities existed.

FA Blockhus further contends that these defenses were inconsistent with the protections contemplated under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and the Railway Labor Act, both of which emphasize fair investigation procedures, employee participation, grievance protections, and just-cause principles. According to FA Blockhus, the Company’s reliance upon “honest belief” and “he would have been fired anyway” improperly shifted attention away from critical facts, including:

• that he was never interviewed,
• that he was on approved FMLA leave and medically unavailable,
• that management had agreed to postpone the investigation,
• that disputed evidence was never conclusively authenticated.
• that FA Lense testified "I was only protecting my job"
• that FA Lense original complaint was that her job was threatened
• that later she added false edited screenshots of text messages

FA Blockhus therefore maintains that the courts should have viewed United’s reliance upon these defenses as further indication that the underlying investigation and disciplinary process contained substantial unresolved factual and procedural deficiencies warranting greater scrutiny rather than judicial deference.

The Agreement does not provide that a Flight Attendant may be terminated merely because management subjectively believes misconduct may have occurred. Rather, the Agreement contemplates a disciplinary process grounded in investigation, fairness, participation, review rights, and procedural safeguards consistent with the principles of just cause under the Railway Labor Act.

Section 23 of the Agreement establishes a comprehensive framework for investigations, grievances, hearings, and disciplinary review. These provisions contemplate meaningful participation by the Flight Attendant, presentation and evaluation of evidence, involvement of Union representation, and procedural review before severe discipline such as discharge is sustained. Nowhere does the Agreement state that management may terminate a Flight Attendant solely based upon an unverified “honest belief” absent a fair and reliable investigation.

The distinction is critical. A standard based merely upon management’s subjective belief effectively removes the contractual protections negotiated by the Union and replaces them with unilateral managerial discretion. Under such a theory, the Company could terminate an employee without thoroughly verifying allegations, without fully investigating contradictory evidence, and without adhering to consistent procedural safeguards, so long as management later asserts that it “believed” the accusations at the time. Such a standard is fundamentally inconsistent with the purpose of Section 23 and incompatible with the concept of just cause traditionally recognized in labor arbitration.

In FA Blockhus’s case, the deficiencies in the investigation highlight precisely why a mere “honest belief” standard cannot satisfy the requirements of the Agreement. The investigation proceeded while FA Blockhus was medically unavailable and on approved FMLA leave. He was never interviewed prior to termination, despite this fact later being acknowledged under oath by the lead investigator. The Company relied upon disputed and unauthenticated evidence without utilizing available forensic or objective verification methods to conclusively establish authorship of the alleged text messages. Contradictory evidence and witness testimony appear not to have been meaningfully evaluated, and comparable allegations involving the complainant were not subjected to equal scrutiny.

These circumstances demonstrate a process that lacked the hallmarks of a fair and complete investigation contemplated under the Agreement. If the “honest belief” defense alone were sufficient to sustain discharge, then the procedural protections set forth in Section 23 would become largely meaningless. The contractual grievance and investigation framework exists specifically to ensure that disciplinary decisions are based upon reliable facts, consistent standards, and fair process—not merely subjective managerial conclusions.

Labor arbitrators have long recognized that just cause requires more than suspicion, assumptions, or unsupported belief. It requires a fair investigation, reasonable effort to ascertain the truth, objective consideration of evidence, and consistent application of standards. Where an employer fails to interview the accused employee, proceeds despite known medical unavailability, relies on disputed evidence, or deviates from established procedures, arbitrators routinely view such conduct as undermining the legitimacy of the disciplinary outcome.

Additionally, the Company’s parallel assertion that FA Blockhus “would have been fired anyway” further underscores the weakness of the investigative process. Such reasoning suggests a predetermined outcome untethered from the procedural protections guaranteed under the Agreement. The Collective Bargaining Agreement does not authorize termination based upon speculation as to what management believes might ultimately have occurred regardless of procedural deficiencies. Rather, the Agreement requires that discipline itself be imposed through a fair, consistent, and contractually compliant process.

Accordingly, United’s reliance upon an “honest belief” rationale cannot substitute for the procedural obligations imposed under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. The Agreement requires more than subjective belief—it requires a fair investigation, adherence to established procedures, meaningful employee participation, and reliable evidence sufficient to sustain just cause. In the absence of those protections, the disciplinary action taken against FA Blockhus cannot reasonably be said to reflect the type of fair and impartial process contemplated by the Agreement and the Railway Labor Act.