The record establishes that United Airlines  (Junior supervisor Frank Hester) did not terminate FA Blockhus based on just cause, credible evidence, or a fair and neutral investigation. Instead, United (Junior supervisor Frank Hester) abandoned its contractual obligations, disregarded its own directives, and terminated a 24-year, unblemished union employee sight unseen, while he was on approved FMLA leave and medically unable to participate.

United’s investigation was procedurally defective at every critical stage. FA Blockhus was never interviewed, never provided full notice of the allegations against him, never afforded union representation, and never given an opportunity to respond. United relied almost exclusively on unauthenticated, undated screenshots submitted by FA Lense—screenshots lacking phone numbers, metadata, or corroboration—while simultaneously ignoring objective recordings, contemporaneous evidence, material witnesses, and sworn testimony that directly contradicted the allegations. In fact FA Lense testified she was only trying to save her jobs as she herself would be turned into the company for harassment. Compounding these defects, United attempted to justify its decision by falsely asserting that FA Blockhus “admitted guilt.” This claim is unsupported by the record. 

United has never identified a single verifiable quote in which FA Blockhus admitted to sending the alleged text messages or engaging in misconduct. To the contrary, the evidence shows that FA Blockhus consistently and adamantly denied the allegations, immediately characterizing them as “ridiculous,” and later formally withdrew an illadvised, anxiety-driven draft statement that United itself acknowledged was submitted outside the disciplinary process and before he was informed of the full allegations. United’s reliance on a nonexistent “admission” further exposes the investigation as pretextual and demonstrates an effort to retrofit justification after the decision to terminate had already been made.

The complainant’s own testimony further undermines United’s position. She admitted she did not intend to ever report FA Blockhus until after he informed her he would report her harassment; that her concern centered on job security rather than fear or safety; and that she continued voluntary social, personal, and intimate contact with FA Blockhus during the very period she later characterized as harassment.
Multiple time-stamped recordings confirm this continued relationship, yet United refused to consider them. United also deliberately excluded the "co-worker", a material witness whose testimony would have further exposed the retaliatory and personal nature of the complaint.

Compounding these failures, United expressly agreed—through management and the Union—to postpone the investigation until the conclusion of FA Blockhus’s FMLA leave, as stipulated in FA Blockhus written employment contract, issued a directive confirming his unavailability, and then knowingly violated that agreement by proceeding anyway. This conduct constitutes a clear breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement, unlawful interference with protected medical leave, and a denial of fundamental due-process protections.

United’s after-the-fact reliance on “honest belief,” “he would have been fired anyway,” and a fabricated claim of “admission” does not satisfy the contractual requirement of just cause. None of these rationalizations appear in the CBA, and none can excuse a termination reached through a biased, onesided, and incomplete process. By its own admissions, United substituted internal timelines for contractual compliance, expediency for fairness, and assumption for investigation.

In sum, this case does not present a close factual dispute. It presents a systemic failure of process, marked by selective evidence, suppression of exculpatory witnesses, disregard of protected leave, and reliance on demonstrably false justifications. FA Blockhus’s termination was pretextual, contractually invalid, and unlawful.