It was further discovered by United Airlines that FA Katherine Lense publicly posted statements on social media, including Facebook, that were damaging and disparaging toward her employer, United Airlines. The content of these statements reflected negatively on the Company and, under normal circumstances, would reasonably be expected to warrant review and potential disciplinary action under applicable workplace policies governing employee conduct and public communications.

In addition, FA Lense posted statements on Twitter that included language directed at a fellow employee which could reasonably be interpreted as threatening in nature, including remarks suggesting that the individual should be harmed. Such statements, particularly when made publicly and in reference to a coworker, would typically trigger serious concern and warrant immediate investigation under workplace conduct and safety policies.

Despite the nature of these statements, and the fact that they were publicly accessible, no meaningful investigation or disciplinary action was taken against FA Lense. This lack of response stands in stark contrast to the manner in which allegations against FA Blockhus were handled, where unverified and unauthenticated claims were aggressively pursued and ultimately used to justify termination.

The decision to once again disregard FA Lense’s conduct raises serious concerns regarding the consistency and objectivity of United’s disciplinary practices. When an employer selectively enforces its policies—pursuing severe discipline in one instance while declining to act in another involving comparable or potentially more serious conduct—it undermines the credibility of the investigative process and suggests that outcomes may be influenced by factors other than a fair and impartial assessment of the facts.

In this case, the failure to address FA Lense’s public statements appears particularly significant given the broader context. At the time, United was actively relying on her allegations as the foundation for disciplinary action against FA Blockhus. Under such circumstances, the decision not to scrutinize or address her own conduct gives rise to the reasonable inference that maintaining the integrity of the case against Mr. Blockhus took precedence over applying company policies in a consistent and even-handed manner.

This selective inaction is not an isolated issue, but part of a broader pattern in which evidence unfavorable to FA Lense was disregarded, while unverified allegations against FA Blockhus were accepted without meaningful scrutiny. Such an approach is incompatible with the principles of fair investigation and just cause, both of which require that all relevant evidence be evaluated objectively and that policies be applied consistently to all employees.

Accordingly, the failure to investigate or discipline FA Lense for her publicly disparaging and threatening statements further demonstrates that the process leading to FA Blockhus’s termination was neither balanced nor impartial. Instead, it reflects a one-sided approach in which outcomes were effectively predetermined, rather than derived from a fair and comprehensive evaluation of the evidence.