Notably, FA Lense failed to disclose a voicemail message FA Blockhus left for her on January 24, 2021—prior to the message she submitted from January 25, 2021—because it did not support the narrative she sought to present. This earlier message, which is available for review below, reflects his effort to communicate in a respectful, calm, and constructive manner.

In that communication, FA Blockhus approached FA Lense in good faith, expressing a willingness to resolve matters amicably and maintain a civil line of communication. The tone and content of this message are inconsistent with the characterization later advanced by FA Lense and instead demonstrate an intent to de-escalate, not threaten or harass.

FA Lense did not respond to this message. More importantly, she did not provide this communication to United during the investigation, despite its direct relevance. The omission of this evidence is significant, as it would have directly contradicted the narrative she later presented and undermined the allegations relied upon by United.

The selective submission of evidence—particularly the exclusion of communications that are inconsistent with an asserted claim—raises serious concerns regarding the completeness and accuracy of the record. A fair and impartial investigation requires the consideration of all relevant evidence, not only that which supports a particular narrative.

Accordingly, the failure to disclose this January 24, 2021 voicemail further demonstrates that the record relied upon by United was incomplete and materially misleading.

United, which had a duty to act as a neutral and impartial party, failed to do so in this matter. Instead of fairly evaluating all relevant evidence, United omitted critical facts—specifically, evidence that FA Lense was engaging in harassing conduct toward both FA Blockhus and a co-worker. This omission resulted in a one-sided and incomplete portrayal of events.

At the same time, United mischaracterized FA Blockhus’s voicemail, in which he stated that the matter would be reported to the company if the conduct continued, as a “threat.” In reality, this communication was a straightforward statement regarding potential escalation through formal workplace channels, not an expression of intimidation or wrongdoing.

FA Blockhus’s reference that the situation “would get ugly” was plainly made in the context of potential company involvement and the consequences of a formal Human Resources process. When viewed objectively and in full context, the statement reflects an effort to resolve the matter before escalation—not a threat of harm. Interpreting this language otherwise requires a distortion of its plain meaning.

United’s characterization of this communication as a threat is therefore not supported by the actual content of the message. Rather, it reflects a misrepresentation that materially altered the nature of the communication and contributed to an inaccurate narrative.

This mischaracterization, when considered alongside the omission of contrary evidence, raises serious concerns regarding the neutrality and integrity of United’s investigation. Such conduct suggests that the conclusions reached were not based on a balanced evaluation of the facts, but instead on a selective presentation of evidence.

These circumstances warranted closer scrutiny of United’s actions throughout the investigative process. The misrepresentation of a clear and non-threatening communication is not a minor error—it is indicative of a broader failure to apply objective standards and further undermines the reliability of the findings relied upon in this case.