Investigation Failures
Lead "investigator" John McCormick Ignored Contractual Employment
Protections of FA Blockhus
McCormick admitted under oath that he:
- He Never interviewed nor communicated with FA Blockhus in any way.
- Testified FA Lense was only concerned about keeping her job.
- Ignored the CBA’s guaranteed protections of:
1. Employee participation in investigation
2. Opportunity to respond to the full allegations and evidence
3. Right to union representation
4. Right to submit key evidence in defense
Why This Matters:
- CBA Violation: The contract required due process, participation, and representation.
McCormick’s own testimony confirms these rights were denied. - Sham Investigation: An investigation that never includes the accused is procedurally
improper and cannot support a “just cause” termination. - Pretext Evidence: His failure to even attempt communication suggests the outcome was
predetermined. - Legal Weight: Courts routinely hold that failure to follow contractual procedures is a
material breach (see Smith v. Chrysler Corp., 155 F.3d 799 (6th Cir. 1998) on employer
belief requiring “particularized facts”).
⚖ Key Argument:
McCormick’s Admissions Establish Contractual Violations and Pretext
Lead investigator John McCormick’s own admissions prove that United denied FA Blockhus the procedural protections guaranteed by his written employment contract. McCormick acknowledged that he never interviewed FA Blockhus, never verified the alleged evidence, never authenticated the text messages, and relied solely on one-sided, uncorroborated statements. These admissions reveal that the so-called “investigation” was nothing more than a pretextual rubber stamp, conducted to justify a predetermined termination rather than to determine the truth. United (Frank Hester) abandoned the contractual requirements of due process, just cause, and employee participation, replacing them with a rushed, incomplete, and fundamentally unfair process. McCormick’s testimony is direct evidence that United breached the Collective Bargaining Agreement and failed to conduct a reasonable, good-faith investigation, rendering its termination decision invalid as a matter of contract law. These procedural shortcomings also demonstrate pretext, supporting claims of wrongful termination, retaliation, and violation of federal and contractual protections.
McCormick's Relied solely on Hearsay and Unsubstantiated Evidence
- Lead Investigator John McCormick admitted under oath that he:
1. Relied solely on hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence provided by FA Lense.
2. Conducted no independent fact-finding, verification, or corroboration.
3 McCormick admitted that FA Lense was only concerned about her employment
- McCormick Improperly Delegated Control of the Investigation to FA Lense
1. Lead investigator John McCormick fully allowed FA Lense to guide and control the
narrative of the investigation. He relied exclusively on her characterizations of events,
accepted only the materials she chose to provide, and deferred to her judgment
regarding what evidence was “relevant.” McCormick made no independent effort to
verify facts, authenticate evidence, seek corroboration, or obtain the accused
employee’s account.
2. By permitting the complainant to dictate the scope and content of the investigation,
United abandoned neutrality and transformed the process into a one-sided,
complainant-driven exercise, rather than a fair and objective inquiry as required by the
Collective Bargaining Agreement.
⚖Why This Matters:
- Not a True Investigation: A conclusion based only on hearsay is procedurally
defective. - CBA Violation: The contract required a fair and impartial process with fact
development — not blind reliance on one-sided accusations. - Due Process Failure: FA Blockhus was denied the opportunity to confront the evidence
or challenge credibility. - Legal Weakness: Courts have consistently found that reliance on uncorroborated
hearsay cannot support termination when due process rights exist (see Reeves v.
Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133 (2000)).
⚖ Key Argument:
McCormick’s reliance on hearsay and unsubstantiated claims — without verification or corroboration —
proves that United’s so-called “investigation” was not designed to find the truth. It was a sham process
used to justify a predetermined outcome. An investigation in which the complainant controls the
narrative—without independent verification or input from the accused—fails basic standards of due process and just cause. United’s delegation of investigative authority to FA Lense demonstrates bias, lack of reasonable inquiry, and pretext, rendering the termination decision procedurally invalid and contractually unlawful.