The available evidence and surrounding circumstances raise substantial questions regarding FA Lense’s intent, credibility, and motivations in connection with the allegations made against FA Blockhus. Rather than reflecting the behavior of an individual genuinely fearful of harassment or intimidation, the record contains numerous facts and inconsistencies suggesting that other motives may have influenced the accusations and subsequent actions taken against FA Blockhus.

Most notably, evidence submitted in the matter indicates that FA Lense and FA Blockhus continued maintaining regular communication and an ongoing personal relationship during the same general time period in which FA Lense later claimed to have been harassed. In fact FA Lense testified they were "friends" all the way through to January 2021 when FA Blockhus informed her she will be reported to the company for harassment. Documents, communications, phone records, travel plans, and other evidence appear inconsistent with the characterization of a relationship defined by fear, intimidation, or avoidance. According to the materials presented, FA Lense allegedly initiated or engaged in hundreds of communications with FA Blockhus between October 2020 and February 2021, notably after the timeframe in which she claimed harassment occurred. Such conduct raises legitimate questions regarding the consistency of the allegations and whether the full nature of the relationship and interactions was accurately portrayed during the investigation.

Additionally, testimony and statements attributed to FA Lense reportedly indicate that her primary concern was protecting her employment with United Airlines rather than fear for her safety. In recorded or documented statements referenced by FA Blockhus, FA Lense allegedly stated that she “did not feel threatened” and was “only trying to protect her job.” These statements are significant because they appear inconsistent with the severity of the allegations later relied upon to justify termination. Such inconsistencies are relevant when evaluating credibility, motive, and the overall reliability of the accusations.

The timing of events also raises important questions. According to the factual timeline presented, FA Lense filed her complaint immediately after being informed that both FA Blockhus and a co-worker intended to report her own alleged conduct and harassment to the company. FA Blockhus maintains that his January 24 and January 25 voicemail communications were attempts to resolve the matter privately and inform FA Lense that continued workplace issues and harassment concerns would be reported to Human Resources if the situation was not addressed. The fact that FA Lense reportedly initiated her complaint immediately following these communications may support an inference that the complaint was at least partially retaliatory or defensive in nature.

Further, evidence was allegedly presented showing that FA Lense’s own conduct was not subjected to the same level of scrutiny during the investigation. Complaints involving her behavior, witness testimony regarding harassment concerns, and evidence contradicting aspects of the allegations appear to have received limited investigation or follow-up. This disparity contributed to an investigative process that Mr. Blockhus contends was incomplete and one-sided.

The surrounding circumstances therefore present a pattern of conduct and inconsistencies that, at minimum, warrant careful scrutiny regarding the motivations underlying the accusations against FA Blockhus. While only a full and impartial investigation could definitively resolve these issues, the evidence presented by FA Blockhus raises substantial concerns that the allegations were not  motivated solely by the reasons later advanced during the disciplinary process.

Taken together, the continued communications, contradictory statements, timing of the complaint, evidence of ongoing interaction, and statements concerning job protection collectively support FA Blockhus’s position that the circumstances surrounding the allegations were far more complex than the narrative ultimately accepted during the investigation.