Mr. Blockhus’s phone records and activity logs for the period spanning October, November, and December 2020, as well as January and February 2021, provide critical, objective evidence directly relevant to the allegations in this case. These records were produced and made available during discovery.

Despite their significance, United failed to meaningfully consider or incorporate this evidence into its investigation. The omission of these records is particularly concerning, as they contain information that directly contradicts the narrative relied upon to justify Mr. Blockhus’s termination.

Specifically, the phone records demonstrate that Ms. Lense initiated or attempted to initiate contact with Mr. Blockhus on numerous occasions following the date on which she claimed to have been harassed. The frequency of this contact—exceeding 500 calls or attempts, not including communications through text-based applications—reflects a pattern of continued engagement that is fundamentally inconsistent with her allegations.

This objective evidence directly undermines the claim that Ms. Lense was attempting to avoid contact or was acting out of fear. Instead, it establishes that she was actively and repeatedly initiating communication with Mr. Blockhus during the same period she now characterizes as one of harassment.

In addition, these records provide a reliable, verifiable account of communication activity, free from interpretation or subjective characterization. As such, they represent highly probative evidence that should have been central to any fair and impartial investigation.

United’s failure to consider this evidence—particularly where it directly contradicts the allegations being relied upon—raises serious concerns regarding the completeness and integrity of the investigative process. A fair investigation requires the evaluation of all relevant evidence, including information that may be exculpatory or inconsistent with the asserted claims.

Accordingly, the exclusion of Mr. Blockhus’s phone records further demonstrates that the investigation was incomplete, one-sided, and conducted without a full and objective assessment of the available evidence.

Click on the following button to see phone evidence