A review of FA Katherine Lense’s interview statements with United management reveals multiple inconsistencies, contradictions, and admissions that materially undermine the credibility of her allegations against FA Blockhus.

First, FA Lense repeatedly acknowledged that her primary concern was that her “job was threatened” and that she was “only trying to protect [her] job with United.” These statements are significant because they clarify the motivation underlying her complaint and provide important context for evaluating the allegations made against FA Blockhus.

Notably, FA Lense did not describe herself as fearing for her safety or experiencing conduct that she believed constituted harassment. Rather, her own statements indicate that her concern centered on potential workplace consequences and protecting her employment status.

These admissions are directly relevant because they stand in contrast to the severity of the allegations later relied upon by United to justify termination. If the complainant herself characterized the issue primarily as a concern regarding employment rather than harassment or intimidation, it raises important questions regarding how the allegations were interpreted and escalated during the investigative process.

Furthermore, these statements undermine any assertion that FA Lense was subjected to persistent bullying, intimidation, or threatening conduct. A fair evaluation of the evidence requires consideration of her own descriptions of the situation, particularly where those descriptions differ from the conclusions later advanced by the Company.

Accordingly, FA Lense’s repeated acknowledgment that she was attempting to protect her job—and not acting out of fear of harassment—provides critical context that should have been carefully weighed during the investigation and in any subsequent disciplinary determination.

FA Lense also conceded that she had no knowledge of any actual threats or harmful actions being carried out. When questioned about alleged threatening statements, she repeatedly stated that she did not know what was meant and acknowledged that FA Blockhus had “never done anything” in furtherance of those statements . These admissions undermine any claim that there was a credible or actionable threat.

Furthermore, FA Lense’s own statements demonstrate that her primary motivation in reporting the matter was not fear, but concern for her employment. She explicitly stated that she was “simply trying to protect [her] job” . This admission is critical, as it reflects a self-preservation motive rather than a response to actual misconduct.

The timing of her complaint also raises significant credibility concerns. The record indicates that FA Lense filed her complaint immediately after being informed that her own conduct could be reported to the company. This sequence of events suggests a reactive filing, rather than an independent report of misconduct.

Moreover, FA Lense’s statements regarding the nature and timing of her communications with FA Blockhus are inconsistent. While she claimed that their relationship ended in the summer of 2020 and that their last meaningful interaction occurred months earlier, she also acknowledged continued communication, including phone contact all the way into December 2020 . These inconsistencies call into question the accuracy of her timeline and the characterization of the relationship.

FA Lense further stated that she did not want FA Blockhus to lose his job and that she only wanted the "alleged" behavior to stop . This assertion is difficult to reconcile with the subsequent escalation of the matter and the submission of additional materials, including screenshots of older messages, which were used to support disciplinary action.

Notably, FA Lense admitted uncertainty regarding key allegations. When asked what FA Blockhus meant by certain statements that were characterized as threatening, she repeatedly stated that she did not know. This lack of clarity further undermines the reliability of her claims and demonstrates that the alleged threats were speculative rather than substantiated.

Taken together, FA Lense’s own testimony reveals that:

• she did not feel physically threatened or Harassed,
• no workplace misconduct occurred,
• no actual harmful conduct was carried out,
• her primary concern was protecting her employment, and
• key aspects of her account are inconsistent or uncertain.

Despite these admissions, United relied heavily on her allegations while disregarding these material inconsistencies. A fair and impartial investigation requires that such contradictions be carefully evaluated. The failure to do so resulted in an incomplete and misleading record.

Accordingly, FA Lense’s interview testimony does not support the conclusions drawn by United. Instead, it raises substantial doubt regarding the credibility, reliability, and factual basis of the allegations made against FA Blockhus.