John McCormick "Supposed Lead Investigator"
Although Lead Investigator John McCormick initially acknowledged stateing, “I need to interview Blockhus,” he later testified that he never interviewed or spoke with FA Blockhus at any point during the investigation. Despite this critical omission, United (Frank Hester) relied on Mr. McCormick’s incomplete findings to justify termination.
This admission establishes that the investigation was fundamentally flawed, one-sided, and conducted in violation of basic due process and just-cause requirements under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. An employer cannot reasonably claim to have conducted a fair or impartial investigation when the accused employee was never given any opportunity to be heard—particularly while on approved FMLA leave and medically unavailable.
This failure alone demonstrates that United’s termination decision was procedurally defective and made without a reasonably informed factual basis, rendering any assertion of an “honest belief” legally unsustainable and unsupported by the CBA.
Moreover, Mr. McCormick’s position shifted in a manner that further undermines the integrity of the process. During the investigation, he repeatedly stated that interviewing FA Blockhus was necessary. However, after FA Blockhus had already been terminated without participation, Mr. McCormick changed his position and claimed that such an interview was not required.
This reversal conveniently aligns with United’s decision to proceed without affording FA Blockhus any opportunity to participate, further evidencing that the outcome was reached without adherence to required procedures and in violation of his contractual rights.
SHAM INVESTIGATION
by McCormick
Lack of Authentication
Lead Investigator John McCormick admitted under oath that he:
Did not authenticate or verify the alleged text messages, which Contained
- No phone number
- Contained no Date
- Had no corroborating evidence or metadata
- No Circumstantial evidence
- FA Lense testified she only wanted to "protect my job"
- FA Lense testified she had no memory of the circumstances surrounding her claim against FA Blockhus.
- FA Lense testified she and FA Blockhus had been on "friendly terms" until late January 2021
Why This Matters - Failure of Basic Due Diligence: Authenticating evidence is a minimum requirement before
relying on it to discipline or terminate an employee. - CBA Violation: The Collective Bargaining Agreement requires a fair and thorough investigation. Relying on unauthenticated texts fails that standard.
- Evidentiary Standards Ignored: Under FRE 901 and Illinois evidence law, such texts are inadmissible
without proper authentication. - Pretextual Termination: Shows United was willing to accept anything from Ms. Lense without scrutiny, proving bias and bad faith.
United’s Illegal and BIAS Conduct
Reliance on Unverified Evidence Demonstrates a SHAM Investigation
Lead investigator John McCormick admitted under oath that he never authenticated or verified
the alleged text messages, which themselves lacked basic identifying information such as a
phone number, date, or corroborating evidence. Despite these deficiencies, United (Frank Hester) relied on the unverified screenshots as a central basis for terminating FA Blockhus. By accepting
unauthenticated evidence without verification and without affording FA Blockhus an
opportunity to respond to the full accusations and evidence, United (Frank Hester) violated the contractual due-process and just cause requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. These actions expose the so-called investigation as a procedural sham, designed to justify a predetermined outcome rather than to ascertain the truth.
An employer cannot claim a fair or reasonable investigation where it knowingly relies on unverified, facially deficient evidence. United’s failure to authenticate the alleged texts renders its termination decision arbitrary, pretextual, and contractually invalid, defeating any assertion of “honest belief” and supporting claims for wrongful termination and breach of contract. United (Frank Hester) accepted Lense’s complaint and then later her unauthenticated text message screenshots without question or scrutiny.
Investigative Contradiction
McCormick Shifting Testimony
Although claiming “I need to interview Blockhus” lead investigator John McCormick testified that he never interviewed or spoke with FA Blockhus at any point during the investigation. Despite this, United relied on his findings to justify termination, in fact United Management accepted Lense’s complaint and then later her unauthenticated text message screenshots without question or scrutiny. This admission demonstrates that United’s investigation was incomplete, one-sided, and conducted in violation of fundamental due-process and just-cause requirements under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. An employer cannot claim to have conducted a fair or reasonable investigation when the accused employee was never given an opportunity to be heard, particularly when on approved FMLA leave. This failure alone is enough to show that United’s termination decision was procedurally defective, retaliatory, and made without a reasonably informed factual basis, rendering their “honest belief” defense legally untenable.
Why This Matters:
• Shows Bias: The change reflects an outcome-driven process, not a search for truth.
• Supports Pretext Argument: Altering his stance demonstrates the investigation was
designed to justify a predetermined termination.
• CBA Violation: The agreement guaranteed FA Blockhus the right to participate in his own
investigation — McCormick’s shift in testimony confirms that right was ignored.
• Due Process Failure: United knowingly abandoned a fair and impartial investigation,
substituting expediency for its contractual and legal obligations. Rather than conducting a full, balanced,
and evidence-based review as required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and basic principles
of due process, United rushed to a conclusion without interviewing FA Blockhus, without verifying evidence, and despite knowing he was medically unavailable on approved FMLA leave.
The company prioritized meeting an internal timeline over fulfilling its duty to conduct a fair, thorough,
and unbiased investigation.
⚖ Key Argument:
McCormick’s contradictory statements — first acknowledging the need to interview FA Blockhus, then reversing himself — expose the investigation as a sham intended to rubber-stamp termination rather than uphold due process or contractual protections. This conduct demonstrates that United willfully disregarded the contractual standards of just cause and the legal requirements of a reasonable, informed investigation. By abandoning investigative fairness and relying on incomplete, unverified, and one-sided information, United (Frank Hester)acted in bad faith, undermining both the integrity of the process and the legitimacy of the termination decision. Such actions strongly support claims of wrongful termination, breach of contract, retaliation, and pretext, and further undermine any “honest belief” defense the employer may assert. An investigator’s recognition that an interview is necessary is a tacit acknowledgment that the accused’s account is material to the determination of facts. McCormick’s subsequent abandonment of that position demonstrates that United knowingly chose expediency over fairness, and outcome over process.
By proceeding without interviewing FA Blockhus—despite recognizing his central role in the allegations—United (Frank Hester) willfully disregarded the contractual standards of just cause, employee participation, and due process mandated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. By abandoning investigative neutrality and substituting assumption for verification, United (Frank Hester) acted in bad faith, undermining both the integrity of the investigative process and the legitimacy of the termination decision.
• McCormick testified “Ms. Lense’s only concern was losing her job”.
• McCormick did not verify dates, phone numbers, or authenticity of the supposed text messages.
• McCormick testified he relied solely on Lense’s word during a phone call.
• McCormick testified there was “no need” to question her credibility.
• McCormick testified he never spoke to Blockhus at anytime.
• McCormick Testified there was an agreed postponement in any investigation due to
Blockhus FMLA unavailability yet took it upon himself to proceed anyway.
McCormick Own Statement Under Oath:
Lead Investigator John McCormick’s sworn testimony demonstrates that United’s so-called “investigation” was incomplete, biased, and fundamentally defective. By his own words, McCormick admitted that he never interviewed FA Blockhus, never authenticated the alleged evidence, never verified the source or dates of the purported text messages, and relied entirely on uncorroborated statements from the complainant. He acknowledged that he made no effort to confirm critical facts, asked no follow-up questions, and accepted whatever Ms. Lense chose to provide—despite lacking any objective basis for doing so. These admissions establish that United did not conduct a fair, thorough, or neutral review of the allegations. Instead, the company relied on an investigation that was procedurally hollow and substantively empty, designed to validate a predetermined outcome rather than determine the truth.
⚖ Key Legal Significance:
McCormick’s testimony is direct, sworn evidence that United breached its contractual obligations under the
CBA and failed to meet even the most basic standards of a reasonable investigation. The employer’s reliance on such a deficient process renders its termination decision unsupported, pretextual, and void of just cause, strengthening claims of wrongful termination, bad faith, retaliation, and violation of due-process rights.
McCormick testified;
“I have never spoken to Mr. Blockhus.”
“I have never met Mr. Blockhus in person”
“I have never communicated with him from my end, no.”
“I did not communicate with Mr. Blockhus via e-mail.”
“At the time I had no reason to doubt that these were sent from anyone other than Derek based on my
conversation with Katherine Lense.” -(based on a simply phone conversation)
“I did not believe I had to do anything to confirm”
“No, I did not ask her for a phone number with these text messages”
“No, I did not do anything with Ms. Lense's phone to do anything with these text messages”
“I Didn't need to determine the year”
“I don't know the exact dates of those messages, no.”
“I do not know for sure because I don't know when she took this screen shots on her phone.”
“I didn't ask for a specific date of these text messages, no.”
“No, I never did anything to determine the authenticity of her text messages”
“I didn't feel a need to ask.”
“I didn't determine credibility”
“There was no need for me to question Katherine's credibility”
“I'm telling you that I didn't so I can't play make-believe land. I don't know. She didn't come off as not”
“I didn't feel a need to ask for the dates of the text messages”
“I did not request a text message log from Ms. Lense.”
“Lense told me that they were not relevant to the case.”
“She provided only what she believed to be necessary to move the case forward”
“I don't know what she -- other than what she said to me, I have no other information about the situation”
⚖ Key Argument:
By McCormick’s own testimony, the investigation relied entirely on hearsay and unsubstantiated evidence, conducted without interviewing FA Blockhus, without authenticating the alleged text messages, and without questioning the credibility of the complainant. This demonstrates that United’s process was not a genuine investigation, but a sham designed to justify a predetermined outcome, in violation of contractual due process rights. These admissions establish that United (Frank Hester) abandoned even the most basic investigative obligations. A legitimate investigation requires independent fact-finding, credibility assessment, and meaningful participation by the accused—particularly where termination of a long-tenured employee is at stake. Instead, United (Frank Hester) accepted the complainant’s narrative wholesale, allowed FA Lense to dictate what evidence was “relevant,” and proceeded without verification, corroboration, or balance. Such a process cannot reasonably be characterized as an investigation.
McCormick’s contradictory statements — first acknowledging the need to interview FA Blockhus, then
reversing himself — expose the investigation as a sham intended to rubber-stamp termination rather
than uphold due process or contractual protections. This conduct demonstrates that United (Frank Hester) willfully
disregarded the contractual standards of just cause and the legal requirements of a reasonable, informed
investigation. By abandoning investigative fairness and relying on incomplete, unverified, and one-sided
information, United (Frank Hester) acted in bad faith, undermining both the integrity of the process and the legitimacy of the termination decision. Such actions strongly support claims of wrongful termination, breach of
contract, retaliation, and pretext, and further undermine any “honest belief” defense the employer may
assert. An investigator’s recognition that an interview is necessary is a tacit acknowledgment that the
accused’s account is material to the determination of facts. McCormick’s subsequent abandonment of
that position demonstrates that United knowingly chose expediency over fairness, and outcome over
process. By proceeding without interviewing FA Blockhus—despite recognizing his central role in the
allegations—United (Frank Hester) willfully disregarded the contractual standards of just cause, employee
participation, and due process mandated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. By abandoning
investigative neutrality and substituting assumption for verification, United (Franks Hester) acted in bad faith,
undermining both the integrity of the investigative process and the legitimacy of the termination decision.
McCormick Statements Regarding the Voice messages left by Blockhus and that Lense only concern was “losing her job”;
McCormick confirmed under oath that he personally listened to the voicemail from FA
Blockhus to Katherine Lense. His testimony establishes the following:
• “That is correct, I listened to the voicemail between Derek Blockhus to Katherine Lense.”
• “Yes, there was a mention of a hostile work environment that he spoke about before saying that it was -- he
was -- it would affect her job and that it could affect her job at United Airlines.”
• “My recollection of the voicemail was that Derek was calling to talk about alleged harassment; however,
he brought up that he didn't want all this situation to affect Katherine Lense's job.”
“An employee can tell another employee they are going to report them to HR, yes”
• “Yes, that would be considered acceptable”
• “Based on the contents of my notes and to my best recollection, she was worried about false allegations that
were allegedly being brought by Derek via the voicemail that we had received and listened to alongside text
messages”
• “No. To my best recollection she had stated she had been on furlough so she was unsure of what the
allegations could be. Her main concern was that she was worried she was returning back to work and
Derek had threatened her on voicemail saying that her job could be in trouble based on the allegations
that he would have brought forward”
• “she was worried about false accusations”
• “My understanding of this is that she was worried about her job based on the threat that was made on the
voicemail and, as she said at the top under 1(a), "I am getting ready to get back and want to protect myself."
• “there were other voicemails on that picture, and at that point I asked if those voicemails were pertinent to
the investigation, which she told me "Nothing that worries me about my job."
Post-Hoc Revision of Investigator Testimony to Justify Termination
Lead investigator John McCormick later changed and reframed his characterization of FA Blockhus’s
voicemail, asserting that it “threatened her job,” despite earlier acknowledging that the voicemail concerned reporting alleged harassment and expressly noting that an employee may inform another employee that they intend to report misconduct to Human Resources. This shift in testimony appears designed to retroactively justify FA Blockhus’s termination, rather than to reflect an objective assessment of the evidence at the time of the investigation.
The voicemail evidence, by McCormick’s own admission, does not demonstrate harassment or threats. Instead, it shows that FA Blockhus sought to address workplace concerns responsibly while expressly stating he did not want Lense’s job affected. Lense’s own statements confirm her focus was on job protection, not fear for safety, undermining the credibility of her harassment allegations and exposing United’s reliance on a mischaracterized voicemail as pretext for termination.
⚖ Key Legal Significance:
Courts view post-hoc reinterpretations of evidence with skepticism, particularly where the revised narrative contradicts earlier testimony or contemporaneous findings. McCormick’s change in position supports an inference of pretext, undermines the credibility of the investigation, and further demonstrates that United’s termination decision was not based on a fair or consistent evaluation of the facts, but rather on an effort to rationalize an outcome already decided.
⚖ Key Argument:
The voicemail evidence, by McCormick’s own admission, does not demonstrate harassment or threats. Instead, it shows that Blockhus sought to address workplace concerns responsibly while expressly stating he did not want Lense’s job affected. Lense’s own statements confirm her focus was on job protection, not fear for safety, undermining the credibility of her harassment allegations and exposing United’s reliance on a mischaracterized voicemail as pretext for termination.
McCormick Statements Regarding United’s own agreement
to postpone any investigation until Blockhus returned from
FMLA leave
Testimony from United’s lead investigator establishes that management and investigators were fully aware that Mr. Blockhus was medically unavailable due to participation in an Employee Assistance Program and approved FMLA leave, yet proceeded to terminate him in absentia:
- “My understanding is that the AFA, the union, has their own employee assistance program that is outside of the company, that Mr. Blockhus had gone to them for those resources, and Monique was letting me know that he would be unable to meet at this time.”
- “I believe at some point I had seen communication that Mr. Blockhus would be unavailable to speak with me until -- or speak with anyone in the company until April 5, somewhere in the beginning of April of that year.”
- “Yes, that is correct, she was informing me that there was a holdup in the immediate rescheduling of the interview and I passed that along to Kim Phillips”
- “Correct. He was unable to participate on at least that current date based on the information she had
provided to me”. - “That is correct. Based on her message, he is medically unable to participate, yes”.
- “On the 10th I was aware he would not be able to participate; however, the message did not have any date ranges saying he was going to be unavailable for a future interview”
- “To the best of my recollection, that Mr. Blockhus was still unable to meet with me at the time of the
interview. I didn't think much more of it because I have other things to worry about and other cases to deal with, so I didn't think much of it and I probably would have asked just let me know when we are ready to go again.” - “No. I was never told that he was available for an interview at any point because I would have
interviewed him.”(*McCormick will later state he did not need to interview Blockhus) - “I was able to complete my findings without needing to speak with Mr. Blockhus”.
- “I didn't need to wait. I had the information already here. I didn't need to speak with him. You don't have to speak with a respondent”.
- “I had a timeline to meet and I met it.”
- “We always will give an employee an opportunity to speak with us”.
- “I never contacted him in any form. We had never spoken, met or anything of the like”.
⚖ Key Argument:
McCormick’s testimony demonstrates that United knowingly violated FA Blockhus’s contractual rights to due process, union representation, and participation in his own investigation. By disregarding clear notice of his medical unavailability, rushing to meet an internal “timeline,” even though there was an agreement to postpone, and concluding the investigation without interviewing him, United deprived FA Blockhus of the fundamental protections guaranteed under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and federal law.