A complainant who forgives alleged threatening conduct, maintains an ongoing friendship, and continues
personal interactions cannot later be deemed a credible victim—particularly where the employer, not the complainant, escalates the matter into criminal charges. Such conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with claims of fear, hostility, or harassment. Ms. Lense’s own testimony confirms these inconsistencies. She admitted to forgiving the alleged conduct, remaining friends with Mr. Blockhus, and further testified that she could not recall whether their relationship remained intimate during or after the period of the alleged harassment. These admissions directly undermine the credibility of her allegations.

⚖ Key Argument:
A complainant who forgives alleged threatening conduct and maintains friendship cannot later be deemed a credible victim when the employer alone escalates the matter into criminal charges. This inconsistency undermines credibility, suggests retaliatory motive, and raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the charges. Ms. Lense even testified she can not recall if she and Blockhus remained intimate after this so called harassment.

“I can't remember for sure, but I do have like messages from him, but I don't remember exactly what it was all about.” ~Ms. Lense

Credibility Issue – Lack of Recall on Alleged Messages.

This statement highlights multiple problems with her allegations:

 Why This Undermines Her Claim:

• Uncertainty of Content: She admits she does not remember what the alleged messages
  were about, undermining their reliability.
• No Specific Threat Identified: Without recalling exact words, she cannot prove they were
  “threatening” or “harassing.”
• Fails Authentication Standards: Under FRE 901 and Illinois evidence rules, vague
  recollections cannot authenticate digital evidence.
• Contradicts Employer’s Case: United relied on her submissions without verification,
  yet even she cannot remember what they meant — exposing the weakness of the evidence.
• Suggests Exaggeration or Fabrication: If she cannot recall details, it raises doubt
  whether the messages ever existed as described.
• Lack of Specificity: She cannot recall the content of the alleged messages,
  undermining their reliability.
• Uncertainty of Origin: Her wording (“like messages from him”) suggests hesitation and
  lack of confidence that the texts even came from Mr. Blockhus.
• No Authentication: If the complainant herself cannot remember what the messages said or
  provide clear details, then the evidence fails under Federal Rule of Evidence 901 and comparable
  Illinois evidentiary standards, which require authentication.
• Contradiction: She simultaneously asserts threatening texts existed but admits she does not
  recall their context — raising doubt about whether such threats were ever made.

⚖ Key Argument: Unreliable and Unauthenticated Alleged Text Messages

Ms. Lense’s inability to recall the content, context, or circumstances of the alleged “threatening” messages renders her testimony internally inconsistent and unreliable. She admitted under oath that she could not remember what the messages were “all about,” yet those same messages became central to United’s termination decision. Absent authentication, corroboration, or specific recollection, the alleged text messages lack evidentiary reliability and should not be considered credible proof of misconduct. United’s reliance on vague, unauthenticated screenshots—despite the complainant’s admitted memory gaps—demonstrates a fundamentally flawed investigation, supports an inference of pretext, and violates the just-cause and due-process protections guaranteed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

⚖ Key Legal Significance:
Employers may not base termination on evidence that is speculative, unauthenticated, or unsupported by the accuser’s own recollection. United’s decision to do so further undermines any claim of a reasonable or “honest belief” and strengthens the case for wrongful termination.

“I don't remember exact the argument, what it led to, but I just know I was 
not responding to it because it was like some of this is like very threat -- 
like some of this is threatening and not pleasant.” ~Ms. Lense

 Why This Undermines Her Claim:

• No Specifics: She admits she does not remember the argument or what was actually
  said. 
• Vague Description: The phrase “some of this is like very threatening” is subjective
  and imprecise.
• Failure to Authenticate: Without exact wording, dates, or corroboration, these
  alleged messages cannot be verified or authenticated.
• Contradiction with Behavior: Despite calling the messages “threatening,” she
  also admitted she stayed in “friendly contact” with Mr. Blockhus until January 2021 —
  which is inconsistent with someone who truly felt and was threatened.
  
  ⚖Legal Weakness:
  Courts routinely reject unsubstantiated, vague recollections as insufficient proof, particularly when no authenticated evidence exists (see FRE 901 on authentication and Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133 (2000) on pretext/inconsistencies undermining credibility).

⚖ Key Argument: 
Internally Inconsistent and Vague Testimony Undermines Credibility
Ms. Lense’s testimony is internally inconsistent and vague. She repeatedly admitted an inability to recall the substance, context, or details of the alleged “threats,” yet those same allegations were treated as determinative by United. This lack of specific recollection materially undermines the reliability of her claims.
Compounding these deficiencies, Ms. Lense acknowledged continued voluntary contact and a friendly
relationship with Mr. Blockhus during and after the period in which she claims the alleged misconduct occurred. Such conduct is fundamentally inconsistent with claims of fear or harassment and further erodes her credibility.

⚖ Key Legal Significance:
When a complainant cannot recall the alleged misconduct and continues voluntary contact with the accused, the allegations lack probative value. An employer’s reliance on such testimony—particularly without authentication or corroboration—fails to satisfy just-cause standards and supports findings of pretext, bias, and breach of contractual due-process protections. Lead “investigator” testified “their continued relationship was irrelevant to me”

Investigator McCormick Disregarded Material Exculpatory Evidence
McCormick, the lead “investigator” testified that “their continued relationship was irrelevant to me.” This admission demonstrates a fundamental failure to conduct a fair, neutral, and reasonable investigation. Evidence of an ongoing, voluntary relationship between the complainant and the accused is highly material to assessing credibility, intent, consent, and the existence—or absence—of harassment. |
By deeming this evidence “irrelevant,” the investigator willfully ignored exculpatory facts that directly
contradicted the allegations. This refusal to consider material evidence confirms that the investigation was outcomedriven, not fact-driven.
An investigation that intentionally disregards evidence undermining the complainant’s narrative cannot satisfy justcause or due-process requirements. The investigator’s admission supports a finding of bias, bad faith, and pretext, and further establishes that United breached the procedural protections guaranteed by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

“We were -- we -- we remained friends, 
but we were not dating.”~Ms. Lense

Why This Undermines Her Claim:

• Contradicts Harassment Narrative: A person who alleges harassment normally
  distances themselves from the alleged harasser. Her admission that the two remained
  intimate friends undermines her claim of fear or hostility. 
• Shows Ongoing Voluntary Contact: Remaining in a “friendly” relationship
  after alleged harassment suggests the interactions were consensual and not unwelcome. 
• Raises Motive Questions: Her claim that they were “friends but not dating” could
  signal that the dispute was personal (jealousy, workplace reputation) rather than a
  legitimate harassment case. Furthermore, Lense could not recall if she and Blockhus
  were still physically intimate. 
• Supports Pretext Argument: Courts look for inconsistencies and contradictions
  when assessing credibility. Her testimony shows she continued voluntary, amicable
  contact with Blockhus, which is inconsistent with someone genuinely experiencing
  harassment.

⚖ Key Argument:
Lense’s own words reveal that she considered the relationship a “friendship” even after the “alleged”
misconduct. This undermines her credibility, suggests her claims were retaliatory or exaggerated, and supports the argument that United accepted her statements without proper scrutiny.

“There was no -- I have nothing else considered threatening but this. There is nothing prior to this”. “There's nothing prior to that, no.”

Why This Undermines Her Claim:

• Admits No History of Threats: She acknowledges there were no prior
  threatening messages or conduct. This weakens any claim by United of a pattern of
  harassment.
• Contradicts Later Submissions: She later introduced alleged text messages from
  months earlier (Based on the month, no year). This testimony directly undercuts those
  claims and raises questions about fabrication or exaggeration.
• Reinforces Retaliation Argument: If the only “threat” she points to came after
  Blockhus warned her to stop harassing him, it supports his position that her complaint
  was retaliatory and not based on a history of misconduct.
• Legal Relevance: Inconsistencies between testimony and later-submitted evidence
  are classic indicators of pretext (Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing, 530 U.S. 133 (2000).

⚖ Key Argument: Shifting Narrative and Reliance on Unauthenticated Evidence
Ms. Lense admitted under oath that “there is nothing prior to this,” referring to the conduct she claimed was threatening. This testimony directly contradicts her later reliance on unauthenticated text messages allegedly from earlier dates, which she subsequently introduced to support her claims. The inconsistency between her sworn statements and the later-produced materials highlights the unreliability of her allegations and raises serious concerns regarding fabrication or post-hoc reconstruction of events. United nonetheless accepted this shifting narrative without scrutiny, failed to question the contradiction, and relied on the unauthenticated messages as a central basis for termination. United’s willingness to credit evolving allegations—without verification, authentication, or reconciliation of internal inconsistencies—demonstrates that its investigation lacked objectivity and was fundamentally defective.
Courts and arbitrators view material inconsistencies in a complainant’s account, particularly when coupled with unauthenticated evidence, as strong indicators of unreliability and pretext. United’s failure to reconcile Ms. Lense’s contradictory statements supports claims of lack of just cause, unreasonable investigation, and bad-faith reliance on unverified allegations, in violation of the Collective Bargaining Agreement and basic due-process principles.
 

"No, I do not recall what led up to these text messages”~Ms. Lense
 

Why This Undermines Her Claim:

• No Context Provided: Without remembering what triggered or surrounded the
  alleged messages, she cannot establish intent, tone, or meaning.
• Undermines Reliability: If the complainant herself cannot recall the
  circumstances, the evidence loses weight under both authentication (FRE 901) and
  relevance (FRE 401–403) standards.
• Supports Defense Argument: Her memory gaps cast doubt on the credibility of
  her entire allegation. If she doesn’t remember the context, the claim of “threatening”
  content becomes speculative and subjective.
• Contradicts Certainty in Allegation: She portrays the allege texts as threatening, but her inability 
  to recall the context suggests exaggeration or fabrication.

⚖ Key Argument:
A witness who admits they cannot recall what led up to the alleged threatening messages cannot provide reliable or credible evidence. This makes her testimony inherently weak and shows United failed to require proper scrutiny or corroboration.

Inherently Unreliable Testimony Lacking Recollection or Corroboration

A witness who admits she cannot recall what led up to the alleged threatening messages cannot provide reliable or credible evidence of misconduct. Ms. Lense’s inability to remember the circumstances, context, or precipitating events renders her testimony inherently weak and insufficient to support a finding of wrongdoing.
United nonetheless accepted this testimony without requiring corroboration, authentication, or independent verification, in direct violation of basic investigative standards. This failure to apply meaningful scrutiny further demonstrates a biased and procedurally deficient investigation, supports an inference of pretext, and establishes a breach of the just-cause and due-process protections mandated by the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 

“I really don't remember if we were still intimate after. 
I don’t remember”~Ms. Lense
 

Why This Undermines Her Claim:
Credibility Issue – Uncertainty About Intimacy

• Undermines Harassment Allegation: If she cannot recall whether intimacy
  continued, it raises doubt about her claim of harassment — ongoing intimacy is
  inconsistent with genuine fear or hostility.
• Suggests Ongoing Relationship: Even the possibility of continued intimacy
  undermines her portrayal of the relationship as unwanted or threatening.
• Memory Gaps on Key Issue: Inability to recall something as significant as sexual
  intimacy weakens credibility on all other details.
• Supports Pretext Argument: Courts recognize that voluntary ongoing
  relationships contradict later claims of harassment (e.g., relationship evidence often used
  in credibility determinations).

⚖ Key Argument:
Ms. Lense’s inability to recall whether intimacy continued during the alleged harassment period casts serious doubt on her credibility. It indicates the relationship was ongoing and consensual, not threatening or hostile, and undermines the foundation of her claims. A complainant’s uncertainty regarding the nature of the relationship during the alleged misconduct is inconsistent with claims of fear, hostility, or threatening behavior. Rather, it supports the conclusion that the relationship was ongoing, voluntary, and consensual, not coercive or hostile. Such testimony directly undermines the foundation of Ms. Lense’s allegations and further calls into question United’s decision to rely on her statements without verification.
Courts and arbitrators routinely consider the contemporaneous nature of the relationship when evaluating harassment or threat claims. Where the complainant admits uncertainty as to whether intimacy continued, it weakens any assertion that the conduct was perceived as threatening at the time and reinforces arguments of pretext, lack of just cause, and unreliable evidence.
 

“We planed a trip together to Cancun, one in late Oct 2020 
and one in early Nov 2020”~Ms. Lense
 

Why This Matters:

• Contradicts Harassment Narrative: A person who feels harassed does not plan
  romantic vacations with the alleged harasser to Cancun, Mexico.
• Timing Conflict: The planned trips overlap with the same time frame when Ms. Lense
  claims Blockhus was sending her “threatening” or “harassing” messages.
• Evidence of Friendly/Consensual Relationship: Joint travel plans show a continuing relationship that was cooperative and personal, not hostile. 
• Supports My Argument: Demonstrates her claims are inconsistent with her own actions, strongly suggesting exaggeration or fabrication.

⚖ Key Argument:
The fact that Ms. Lense was planning vacations with Blockhus during the period of alleged harassment shows her allegations lack credibility. This inconsistency strongly supports the argument that her claims were retaliatory and not based on actual misconduct. This inconsistency is highly probative of pretext and retaliatory motive, particularly where the allegations were first raised only after Mr. Blockhus indicated he intended to report Ms. Lense’s conduct to the company.
Courts and arbitrators routinely view contemporaneous friendly or intimate behavior as strong evidence that later harassment claims are not based on actual misconduct, but instead are strategic, retaliatory, or defensive in nature. United’s failure to consider or investigate this contradiction further supports claims of pretext, lack of reasonable investigation, and breach of contractual due-process obligations.
 

“That he (Blockhus) wanted to do something nice for me for my birthday and because I've been having a hard time.”~Ms. Lense
 

Why This Undermines Her Harassment Allegation:
Credibility Issue – Birthday Gift & Kind Gesture

•  Evidence of Friendship: If Mr. Blockhus wanted to “do something nice” for her
  birthday, it shows the relationship was friendly and supportive, not threatening.
• Contradicts Fear Narrative: Accepting or acknowledging birthday gestures is
  inconsistent with claiming harassment.
• Context of Compassion: Her own testimony shows she framed his actions as caring
  because she was “having a hard time,” which is the opposite of harassment.
• Undermines Employer’s Position: United accepted her later harassment claims
  while ignoring her own statements showing mutual friendship and goodwill.
  
  ⚖ Key Argument:
  Her testimony that Mr. Blockhus offered to do something nice for her birthday because she was “having a hard time” directly contradicts her portrayal of him as a harasser. This evidence shows a continued friendly, even compassionate relationship, which undermines her credibility and United’s reliance on her allegations. This evidence demonstrates that the relationship between Ms. Lense and Mr. Blockhus remained friendly, supportive, and voluntary during the period in which harassment is alleged. Such contemporaneous conduct undermines the credibility of her claims and further exposes the unreliability of the allegations upon which United relied. United’s failure to account for this contradiction reinforces that its investigation was incomplete, biased, and pretextual.
  Courts and arbitrators assess harassment claims by examining contemporaneous behavior and context. Testimony reflecting kindness, emotional support, and voluntary interaction during the alleged harassment period weighs heavily against a finding of threatening or unwelcome conduct and supports arguments of pretext, lack of just cause, and unreasonable reliance on unverified allegations.
  
  "In Oct and Nov 2020 we were communicating as friends"~Ms. Lense
   

Why This Undermines Her Harassment Claims:

• Contradicts Timeline of Harassment: She claims harassment occurred during this same period, yet admits they were communicating as friends.
• Evidence of Ongoing Voluntary Contact: Friendly communication is inconsistent with fear, hostility, or harassment.
• Supports Pretext Argument: If she acknowledged a friendship while later portraying the same timeframe as harassment, it suggests she altered her narrative to serve another purpose 
  (e.g., retaliation or job protection).

Relevance in Court: 
Courts often view admissions of ongoing amicable contact as strong impeachment evidence against claims of harassment or abuse.

⚖ Key Argument:
Ms. Lense acknowledged under oath that she and Mr. Blockhus were “communicating as friends” during October and November 2020. This admission directly conflicts with her allegations that Mr. Blockhus was harassing her during that same period. Voluntary, friendly communication is fundamentally inconsistent with claims of unwelcome, threatening, or hostile conduct. This contradiction materially weakens Ms. Lense’s credibility and further demonstrates that United accepted her allegations without proper scrutiny or verification. United failed to reconcile these inconsistencies or assess whether the contemporaneous nature of the relationship undermined the harassment claims, reinforcing that its investigation was incomplete, biased, and pretextual.
Courts and arbitrators routinely consider contemporaneous conduct and relationship context when
evaluating harassment allegations. Admissions of ongoing friendship during the alleged misconduct period strongly undercut claims of harassment and support findings of lack of just cause, unreasonable investigation, and improper reliance on unverified allegations.