Wrongful Termination
Termination Decision Made by Improperly Positioned Decision-Maker
Ultimately, the decision to terminate FA Blockhus was made by Frank Hester, a junior
flight attendant who was temporarily assigned to a low-level supervisory role and
who has since returned to his position as a flight attendant. FA Hester lacked
the seniority, permanence, and authority ordinarily associated with termination
decisions of a 24-year employee governed by a Collective Bargaining Agreement.
This fact raises serious concerns regarding delegation of authority, procedural regularity,
and due process. Termination decisions—particularly those involving serious allegations
and long-tenured employees—are typically reserved for properly authorized management
personnel following a complete and fair investigation. The involvement of a temporary,
low-level supervisor further underscores that United’s decision-making process was
irregular, rushed, and contractually defective, reinforcing the conclusion
that the termination was not based on just cause in fact Hester stated he only
looked at the allegations in making his decision.
• Feb. 26, 2021: FA Hester terminates FA Blockhus without cause, in absentia, while he was
hospitalized during an approved FMLA leave.
• Invalid Justifications for Termination: United (FA Hester) attempted to justify Hester’s
termination decision by claiming an “honest belief” that misconduct occurred and
asserting that “he would have been fired anyway.”
Neither justification is recognized or permitted under FA Blockhus’s written employment contract. The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires just cause,
supported by a fair investigation, verified evidence, notice of allegations, and an
opportunity for the employee to respond. United’s reliance on subjective belief and speculative reasoning is a clear violation of the contract’s mandatory
disciplinary standards.
⚖ Key Legal Significance:
The “honest belief” doctrine does not apply where, as here, the employer failed to conduct a reasonable investigation, verify evidence, or interview the employee—as stipulated in his written employment contract as well as defeating the threshold requirement of a “reasonably informed decision” as established in Smith v. Chrysler Corp. Similarly, the speculative assertion that Mr. Blockhus “would have been fired anyway” is legally insufficient and directly contradicts contractual just-cause protections. These invalid justifications strongly support a finding that the termination was pretextual, procedurally defective, and in breach of the CBA.
Contractual & Procedural Rights Under the CBA
The Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) required that Blockhus be afforded:
- Due Process – a fair and transparent investigation before any discipline or termination.
- Just Cause Requirement–Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA),
termination is permitted only for legitimate, evidence-based reasons.
o Not “He would have been fired anyway” – This is speculative and not recognized under
his CBA written employment contract.
o Not “Honest Belief” – An employer’s subjective belief cannot substitute for objective,
verified evidence.
o CBA Standard – Requires just cause, which includes:
1. A fair and thorough investigation.
2. Reliable, authenticated evidence.
3. The employee’s right to participation and representation.
4.The opportunity to respond only after being fully informed of the charges and evidence against him.
⚖ Key Argument:
United’s reliance on post-hoc rationalizations such as “he would have been fired anyway” and “honest belief” does not satisfy the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s contractual requirement of just cause. Neither rationale appears anywhere in the CBA as a permissible basis for discipline or discharge. Just cause under the agreement requires a reasonable, good-faith investigation, supported by reliable evidence, conducted with notice, participation, union representation, and an opportunity for the employee to respond. United provided none of these protections.
The assertion that Mr. Blockhus “would have been fired anyway” is legally insufficient and inherently
speculative. Courts and arbitrators consistently reject such hindsight justifications, particularly where the employer failed to conduct a lawful investigation in the first place. United cannot excuse procedural violations by asserting that the outcome was inevitable; doing so nullifies the contractual safeguards that the CBA was designed to guarantee.
Similarly, United’s invocation of an “honest belief” defense fails as a matter of both contract and law. An
honest belief must be grounded in a reasonable and informed inquiry. Here, United formed its alleged belief without interviewing Mr. Blockhus, without authenticating critical evidence, without assessing credibility, and while excluding him entirely from the process—despite knowing he was on approved FMLA leave and medically unavailable. A belief formed by willful ignorance and one-sided assumptions cannot be deemed honest, reasonable, or contractually valid.
By relying on these unsupported excuses, United exposed the termination as pretextual rather than
evidence-based.