Investigation Failures

Investigator John McCormick admitted under oath:

He never interviewed or communicated with FA Blockhus.
He did not authenticate or verify any text messages.
He relied solely on Lense’s submissions and recommendations.
He knew there was a directive to contractually postpone until Blockhus FMLA ended, but
took it upon himself to ignored it.

He stated: “I had a timeline to meet and I met it.” Even though contractually he did not based on
the imitating circumstances

False Reliance on Timing Despite Contractual Tolling
Lead investigator John McCormick stated: “I had a timeline to meet and I met it.” This assertion is contractually incorrect. Under the Collective Bargaining Agreement, the disciplinary timeline is automatically tolled when an employee is on approved medical or FMLA leave or when an investigation is postponed due to the employee’s unavailability. At the time McCormick proceeded, FA Blockhus was hospitalized on approved FMLA leave, and United had acknowledged his medical unavailability and agreed to postpone.
Accordingly, there was no operative disciplinary deadline requiring immediate action.
McCormick’s reliance on an alleged “timeline” reflects a deliberate disregard of the CBA’s tolling
provisions and confirms that United proceeded for expediency, not necessity, in violation of
contractual due-process requirements.

⚖ Key Legal Significance:
An employer cannot justify a rushed termination by invoking internal timelines where the governing Collective Bargaining Agreement expressly extends or tolls disciplinary deadlines due to medical leave, unavailability, or agreed postponement. The purpose of such provisions is to protect due process, ensure meaningful employee participation, and prevent employers from forcing disciplinary outcomes based on artificial urgency rather than facts.

Here, the CBA explicitly allowed for an extension of disciplinary timelines while FA Blockhus was on
approved FMLA leave and medically unavailable, and United had affirmatively agreed to postpone the
investigation. Against this backdrop, McCormick’s assertion that he “I had a timeline to meet and met it” is not merely inaccurate—it reflects a deliberate disregard of the controlling contractual framework. An internal timeline cannot override bargained-for contractual protections.

McCormick’s admission therefore exposes pretext. It demonstrates that United’s claimed urgency was
manufactured to justify proceeding without FA Blockhus’s participation, rather than compelled by any
contractual or operational necessity. By prioritizing speed over fairness—and internal deadlines over
negotiated rights—United abandoned the neutral, good-faith process required under the CBA.
As a result, both the investigation and the termination were procedurally invalid and contractually
unlawful. United’s (Frank Hester) decision-making was not guided by just cause or due process, but by expediency and predetermined outcomes. Such conduct violates the express terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and further confirms that Mr. Blockhus’s termination cannot withstand legal scrutiny.

CBA Contract

February 26, 2021

Termination in Absentia:

United cited “honest belief” and “he would have been fired anyway”.
Neither is recognized under the CBA, which requires just cause, due process, union
representation, and participation.
While on approved FMLA leave, FA Blockhus was purportedly “investigated” and terminated
in absentia, sight unseen. United proceeded with disciplinary action despite knowing that FA.
Blockhus was on approved FMLA, medically unavailable, hospitalized, and unable to participate and an active postponement was in place. He was never interviewed, never provided the full allegations, and never given an opportunity to respond before the termination decision was made.

⚖ Key Legal Significance:

Terminating an employee in absentia while on protected FMLA leave—without notice, participation, or due process—constitutes both FMLA interference and a clear breach of the Collective Bargaining Agreement’s just-cause and investigative provisions. United’s decision to proceed despite FA Blockhus’s known unavailability further demonstrates pretext, bad faith, and a procedurally invalid investigation, rendering the termination unlawful.

⚖ Key Argument:

Friendship, not harassment: FA Lense admitted under oath she and FA Blockhus remained friends in
Oct, Nov and until Jan. 2021 when FA Blockhus was forced to contact her to request she stop harassing him or he would get the company involved.
FA Lense voluntary communication with FA Blockhus from Oct 2020-Feb 2021 over 500 times.
Retaliation: Her complaint came immediately (42 minutes) after FA Blockhus said he would report her harassment to the company.
Original claim: Simply that she felt her job was "threatened."
Shifting evidence: Later produced unauthenticated texts, even while admitting memory
gaps of their reasoning.
Sham investigation: McCormick admitted he never interviewed FA Blockhus, ignored FMLA
directives, and relied solely on Lense statements.
Contract breach: Termination in absentia while on FMLA, was not included in any “investigation”,
violated CBA protections.

⚖ Overall Argument:

Retaliatory Motive, Lack of Credibility, and Pretextual Termination

This sequence of events exposes FA Lense’s retaliatory motive, materially undermines her credibility, and reveals that United’s investigation was biased and contractually defective. Rather than uncovering legitimate misconduct, the process was driven by unverified, shifting allegations accepted without scrutiny. United (Frank Hester) abandoned neutrality, failed to conduct a fair investigation, and disregarded mandatory procedural protections under the Collective Bargaining Agreement. As a result, FA Blockhus’s termination was not based on just cause, but on pretext, rendering it unlawful and in violation of both contractual due-process requirements and fundamental principles of fairness. Rather than uncovering legitimate wrongdoing, United’s investigation was driven by unverified, shifting allegations that were accepted at face value despite internal contradictions, memory gaps, and the absence of authentication or corroboration. United failed to assess credibility, disregarded objective evidence contradicting the allegations, and permitted the complainant to shape both the scope and content of the investigation. In doing so, United abandoned its role as a neutral decision-maker and instead aligned itself with the accuser.
Most critically, United ignored mandatory procedural safeguards expressly required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement, including notice of the full allegations, the opportunity to participate in the investigation, union representation, and adherence to contractual timing and tolling provisions. FA Blockhus was investigated and terminated in absentia, while on approved FMLA leave, without ever being interviewed or afforded a meaningful opportunity to respond. As a result, FA Blockhus’s termination was not based on just cause, but on pretext, making it unlawful. United’s (Frank Hester) actions violated the explicit due-process protections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and contravened fundamental principles of fairness and good faith that govern disciplinary proceedings.
The termination decision therefore cannot stand and is invalid as a matter of contract and law.