Indeed, the omission of key facts, such as FA Lense's return call and her expressed willingness to
         withdraw her claim against FA Blockhus, undermines the credibility of United's claims and raises
        doubts about the integrity of the termination process.

        Including such important details is crucial for providing a comprehensive and balanced
        understanding of the situation. Failure to do so may suggest that United Airlines is selectively
        presenting evidence to justify FA Blockhus's termination rather than adhering to a fair and
        impartial investigation process.

       By neglecting to mention FA Lense's communication and willingness to withdraw her claim,
       United Airlines may be presenting a biased narrative that does not accurately reflect the
       circumstances surrounding FA Blockhus's termination. This could undermine the credibility of
      the termination decision and raise concerns about the company's commitment to fairness and
      transparency in its employment practices.

      It's essential for employers to conduct thorough and unbiased investigations, considering all
      relevant evidence and perspectives, to ensure that employment decisions are fair and justified. If
      there are concerns about the integrity of the termination process or the presentation of evidence, it
      may be necessary to seek review or recourse through appeal to uphold employee rights and ensure
      justice is served.

      In light of these concerns, it is essential for United to provide transparent and credible justification
      for their allegations against FA Blockhus.
 

III.Frank Hester; "Corporate Security reviewed the evidence pertaining to the complaintmade on or about January 26, 2021 from Washington Dulles-based flight attendant Katherine Lense which formed the basis for the LOls issued to you, including your own written statements and voicemails to the Company regarding these issues.",

• RESPONSE:The failure of Corporate Security to conduct a thorough investigation beyond reviewing the evidence pertaining to the complaint made by FA Katherine Lense raises serious concerns about the fairness and impartiality of the investigation process. 
  
  By limiting their review to the evidence provided by FA Lense and FA Blockhus's initial confused statements, Corporate Security failed to gather a comprehensive understanding of the situation. 
  This narrow focus suggests a lack of diligence in exploring all relevant factors and evidence that could impact their findings. By failing to conduct a comprehensive investigation, Corporate Security has raised doubts about the integrity of their findings and the fairness of their actions.
   

IV.Frank Hester; "Ms. Lense indicated that she decided to end her relationship with you around thesummer of 2020. You and Ms. Lense then agreed to have a casual friendship; however, in October 2020, you started to exhibit some threatening behaviors toward her. Since October 2020, Ms. Lense received texts from you that stated, "I'll fuck you for a trip," "You what to make sure everyone at United know you'll fuck for a trip," "You do realize, your dad and all his friends are going get nudes of you? 
Because you treated me like shit. You better call me because I'm sick of this bullshit," and "
Call me right now or I'm going to do something that will horrify you."

• RESPONSE: There is no evidence other then what FA Blockhus has submitted to support the claims made regarding the timeline of the relationship between FA Lense and FA Blockhus, nor the specific incidents of threatening behavior alleged to have occurred.
  
  Without verifiable evidence to corroborate these assertions, it is essential to question the validity of such claims. Allegations of threatening behavior and inappropriate communication carry significant implications and must be supported by credible evidence to be considered valid.
  
  In the absence of substantiating evidence, it is inappropriate to make assumptions or draw conclusions about the nature of the relationship or the individual's behavior. Upholding principles of fairness and due process requires that claims be supported by evidence before they can be accepted as facts in a legal context.
  
  Furthermore, making unfounded allegations without sufficient evidence can unjustly damage an individual's reputation and livelihood. Therefore, it is essential to adhere to rigorous standards of evidence and credibility when evaluating such claims. The only visible phone number on FA Lense's text message did not belong to FA Blockhus and United made no effort to identify it before terminating FA Blockhus. No phone number was visible on FA Lense's text messages and United made no effort to identify it before terminating FA Blockhus, this raises significant questions about the thoroughness and fairness of the investigation conducted by the company.
  Terminating FA Blockhus based on evidence that is not conclusively linked to him, especially without conducting proper verification or due diligence, is highly problematic and may constitute an unfair labor practice. Employers have a responsibility to ensure that any evidence used in disciplinary actions is accurate, reliable, and directly relevant to the employee in question.
  
  Failure to verify the identity of the phone number visible in FA Lense's text messages before terminating FA Blockhus suggests a lack of diligence and potentially a rush to judgment by United Airlines. Such actions could result in wrongful termination and may expose the company to legal liability.

V. Frank Hester; "On January 25, 2021, you left a voicemail on Ms. Lenses' phone that stated, "Just call me, let's get this over with because it's going to get ugly." You repeatedly texted Ms. Lense asking for her to call you and threatened her when she did not. You also threatened to file a complaint against Ms. Lense with United Airlines and informed Ms. Lense of other employees who were going to do the same. In part, the voicemail from January 25, 2021 also stated, "I was hoping we could talk about it and I would rather talk to you about it and not HR, because HR will open a disciplinary investigation against you", and "HR, if they get involved, it's not gonna get good, and you're just coming back to work, and I don't think you want to come back to work under investigation." Corporate Security reviewed and confirmed the content of the messages as alleged by Ms. Lense."

• RESPONSE: The voicemail left on FA Lense's phone was primarily intended to address a potential conflict and suggest resolving the matter through communication rather than involving HR. The statement, "Just call me, let's get this over with because it's going to get ugly," was nothing more than to be intended as a plea to address the issue directly to avoid escalation to involve the company. United selectively chose this statement and gave it their own interpretation to purposely incriminate FA Blockhus. If United selectively chose a statement and gave it their own interpretation to incriminate FA Blockhus, it suggests a lack of objectivity and fairness in the company's handling of the situation. Manipulating evidence or selectively presenting information to paint an employee in a negative light undermines the integrity of the investigation process raises serious concerns about the company's commitment to fairness and transparency.
  
  Employers have a responsibility to conduct investigations in a fair and impartial manner, considering all relevant evidence and perspectives before making disciplinary decisions. Selectively choosing statements or distorting information to incriminate an employee is not only unethical but may also be considered a form of misconduct or discrimination.United Airlines selectively chose and interpreted statements to incriminate Mr. Blockhus, it may be indicative of a broader pattern of bias or unfair treatment within the company's disciplinary processes.
  
  The voicemail also suggest a preference for resolving the matter between the parties involved,
  rather than escalating it to HR, which could result in a disciplinary investigation. This
  preference for a direct resolution is not inherently inappropriate and could be seen as a
  reasonable approach to addressing workplace conflicts.
  
  Additionally. there was no evidence FA Blockhus was responsible for sending those text and
  United made no challenge to FA Lense to verify the accuracy of her claims made against him.
  Given the absence of such evidence, it is essential to question the reliability of the allegations
  and whether they accurately reflect the content and context of the communication between the
  parties.
  
  Furthermore, the assertion that Corporate Security reviewed and confirmed the content of the
  messages as alleged by FA Lense raises questions about the impartiality and thoroughness of the
  investigation. Without transparency and accountability in the review process, it is challenging to
  ascertain the validity of the findings and conclusions drawn by Corporate Security.
  In summary, it is crucial to critically evaluate the evidence and allegations presented by both
  parties to ensure a fair and impartial resolution of the dispute. Without verifiable evidence to
  support the claims made by FA Lense, it is inappropriate to accept them as facts and base
  disciplinary actions solely on her allegations.

VI.Frank Hester; "On February 7, 2021, after you received the initial LOI,you emailed a statement toJanene Bell, Senior Manager-lnflight Base; Monique Williams, Manager-Base; Jill Collins, AFA Council 21 President; Donna Matallana, AFA Council 21 Grievance Co-Chair; and Thom Vargas, AFA Council 21 Grievance Co-Chair. Corporate Security reviewed the entire written statement, which in part read, "As far as I was concerned, I was only ,saying mean things back, and not sexually harassing" and "I admit I regretfully used a poorest choice of word while arguing with Ms. Lense that night however I categorically would never sexually harass anyone."

• RESPONSE: FA Blockhus attempted to provided a written statement that was wrongly advised by his supervisor, Ms. Howell to Corporate. FA Blockhus, still shocked and confused in the matter attempted acknowledging that there might have been a verbal exchange between him and FA Lense, but he denies engaging in any harassing behavior or texting. His statement indicates that any harsh words exchanged were part of a back-and-forth dialogue during a possible argument and were not intended as  harassment.
  
  Moreover, FA Blockhus explicitly states that he regrets using poor choice of words (if there was indeed any kind of argument) but emphasizes that he categorically denies engaging in any form of harassment. His denial of sending harassing texts to anyone suggests a firm stance on his part regarding the nature of his interactions with FA Lense.
  
  It's essential to consider FA Blockhus's denial in conjunction with the absence of evidence supporting FA Lense's allegations. Without concrete evidence of sexually harassing texts or behavior, it becomes challenging to substantiate her claims solely based on her assertions.
  
  Therefore, FA Blockhus's denial, coupled with the lack of corroborating evidence, raises questions about the validity of the allegations and underscores the importance of a thorough and impartial investigation to ascertain the truth of the matter. Any disciplinary actions taken should be based on verifiable evidence and conducted in accordance with fair and transparent procedures.
  
  United claims that FA Blockhus admitted guilt but has not provided a specific quote or example to support this assertion, this raises questions about the accuracy and validity of their claim. Accusations of admitting guilt are serious and should be supported by clear and verifiable evidence, especially in employment-related matters where individuals' livelihoods are at stake.
  Without a specific quote or example from FA Blockhus's statement that demonstrates an admission of guilt, United's claim lacks credibility and may be viewed as unsubstantiated. Employers have a responsibility to provide clear evidence when making allegations against employees, and failure to do so undermines the fairness and integrity of the disciplinary process.
  
  It's essential for employers to uphold principles of fairness, transparency, and due process in all employment matters, including disciplinary actions. If United has made allegations of admission of guilt against FA Blockhus without providing sufficient evidence to support these claims, it may be necessary for FA Blockhus to challenge these assertions through Appeal to protect his rights and ensure a fair outcome.
  
   

VII.Frank Hester; "On February 11,2021, Ms. Lense informed Corporate Security that you attemptedto contact her multiple times after she initially filed a complaint with Corporate Security on January 28, 2021. Ms. Lense stated that on February 4, 2021, the same day that you received the LOI setting forth the allegations, she found an envelope left on the windshield of her car that stated, "Sorry to contact you this way." Inside the envelope was a note that stated, "Katherine please I am about to be fired because of your report please I beg you to retract] it. I will lose my job. Please! Please!" That night, text messages sent from your telephone number stated, "Katherine please help I'm going to be fired. Retract your report." On February 8, 2021, Mar Tortajada, your wife, sent an email to Ms. Lense's United Airlines company email stating, "Hi! Here is my number 703***** if you wanna chat for a bit. Stay well, Mar.".

• RESPONSE: The note left on FA Lense's car windshield, indicated his desperate plea for FA Lense to retract her report due to the severe consequences it could have on his employment. This suggests that FA Blockhus was concerned about the potential impact of the allegations on his job security, rather than attempting to harass or intimidate FA Lense. FA Blockhus was well aware as to why FA Lense was creating her false allegations against him and was adamant that she did not need to take such an extreme measure against him as he knows that her false accusations are very serious and he could lose his job of 24 years.
  Overall, the actions described do not seem to align with a pattern of harassment or intimidation but rather reflect FA Blockhus's understandable concern and desperation to address the situation that could potentially jeopardize his livelihood. However, it's essential to consider the context and motivations behind these actions when evaluating their appropriateness. Again FA Blockhus knowing that these allegations against him by FA Lense were a direct result of his voice message to her indicating he and fellow co-worker would report her to the company if she did not stop harassing them.

VIII.Frank Hester; "On February 12,2021, you were issued a directive by Supervisor Kayla Howell
instructing you to cease contact with Ms. Lense and directed you to refrain from having others contact Ms. Lense, her family members, personal and or work colleagues, or any other United Airlines employees on your behalf during the investigatory period. The directive also specifically instructed you not to contact Ms. Lense's family members or send any photos of Ms. Lense. A Revised LOI "
 

• RESPONSE: The fact that United Airlines included allegations regarding attempted contact with FA Lense in their termination letter without providing a mandate to refrain from such contact until after FA Blockhus was already checked into a medical center raises serious concerns. This discrepancy suggests a lack of consistency in the company's approach and calls into question the integrity of their investigation and the fairness of their actions.
  If FA Blockhus was issued a directive to cease contact with FA Lense only after he had already checked into a madical center, it raises questions about the timing and effectiveness of the directive. Additionally, the failure to provide clear guidance on contact restrictions until after the investigatory period had already begun undermines the integrity of the process and may have impacted FA Blockhus's ability to comply with the company's expectations. Overall, the inclusion of such allegations in the termination letter without adequate support or guidance regarding contact restrictions further underscores the need for a thorough review of the company's handling of the investigation and the fairness of their actions towards FA Blockhus.

IX.Frank Hester; "Based on the Company's investigation, it has been determined that you sentthreatening and harassing communications via text and voicemail to Ms. Lense. You also threatened to share nude photos of Ms. Lense with her family and friends .In a voicemail to Supervisor Howell, you admitted that you threatened Ms. Lense. Finally, after being informed of the initial investigatory meeting, you sent text messages to Ms. Lense and left a note on her windshield requesting that she retract her complaint."
 

• RESPONSE: The Company's assertion that FA Blockhus sent threatening and harassing communications to FA Lense via text and voicemail lacks sufficient evidence to support such claims. The investigation conducted by United appears to have been limited to nothing more than reviewing FA Lense's statements and documents without conducting a thorough examination of all available evidence.
  FA Blockhus adamantly denies sending any threatening text messages, and there is no evidence linking him to such communication. The claim that FA lockhus admitted to threatening FA Lense in a voicemail to Supervisor Howell is misleading. In fact, FA Blockhus vehemently denied such allegations in his communication with Ms. Howell, characterizing them as "ridiculous" and accusing FA Lense of harassment. This was nothing more than an attempt by Ms. Howell to alter the outcome by falsely incriminating FA Blockhus. Once again United claims FA Blockhus "admitted guilt" yet can not provide a single quote to substantiate their claim.
  Furthermore, the act of leaving a note on FA Lense's windshield requesting that she retract her complaint does not constitute a company offense. This action was a personal plea from FA Blockhus to FA Lense and does not warrant disciplinary action from the Company.
  In light of these discrepancies and the lack of substantial evidence supporting the Company's claims, it is clear that the investigation conducted was flawed and biased. The Company's attempt to incriminate FA Blockhus based on unsubstantiated allegations and FA Howell’s attempt to misrepresent statements undermines the fairness and integrity of the investigation process.