“I felt like I wanted to protect myself, went to the company, and told them I
was being accused of a hostile work environment”~Katherine Lense

This admission by FA Lense confirms that her decision to contact United was motivated by a desire to
protect herself from potential accusations, not by fear of harassment or personal safety concerns. FA
Lense’s complaint was defensive and preemptive, arising from concern about her own exposure rather than from any contemporaneous experience of harassment. Such an admission undermines the credibility of her allegations and supports the conclusion that her report was retaliatory in nature. United’s reliance on a selfprotective complaint—without scrutinizing motive, timing, or credibility—further evidences a biased and procedurally defective investigation, inconsistent with the just-cause and due-process requirements of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

“I didn't want anybody to get in trouble”~Katherine Lense

This admission is inconsistent with a claim of harassment or fear. A complainant who genuinely believes she has been harassed typically seeks protection or corrective action, not to avoid consequences for the alleged wrongdoer.
This testimony further undermines the credibility of FA Lense’s allegations and supports the conclusion that her complaint was not motivated by genuine harassment concerns, but rather by personal considerations and job protection. United’s reliance on such testimony—without reconciling this inconsistency—reinforces that the investigation was biased, pretextual, and inconsistent with just-cause and due-process requirements under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 

“ I was simply trying to protect my job."~Katherine Lense

This admission confirms that her complaint was motivated by job preservation, not by fear, harassment, or concern for personal safety.
A complainant’s acknowledgment that she acted to protect her employment—rather than to report unwelcome or threatening conduct—undermines the credibility of harassment allegations and supports a finding that the complaint was defensive and retaliatory. United’s reliance on a complaint driven by job protection, without examining motive or credibility, further demonstrates pretext and a failure to conduct a neutral investigation, in violation of the just-cause and due-process protections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

“My biggest issue was the threat to my job”~Katherine Lense

This admission confirms that her concern centered on employment consequences, not fear of harassment, intimidation, or personal safety.
FA Lense acknowledgment that her “biggest issue” was job security directly undermines any claim of
harassment or threat. It demonstrates that the complaint was motivated by self-protection, not by
unwelcome or abusive conduct. United’s reliance on allegations driven by job preservation—without
evaluating motive or credibility—further evidences a pretextual and biased investigation, inconsistent with the just-cause and due-process protections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
 

“I didn’t think anything of it until he brought the company into it, I don’t want him to lose his job”~Katherine Lense

This admission confirms that she did not perceive FA Blockhus’s conduct as problematic or threatening until he indicated that the matter would be reported to management.
This testimony directly undermines any claim of harassment. A complainant who “didn’t think anything of it” until the accused invoked company involvement demonstrates that the alleged conduct was not viewed as unwelcome, hostile, or threatening at the time it occurred. Her stated concern about FA Blockhus losing his job further supports that the issue was not harassment, but rather a reaction to potential workplace consequences. United’s reliance on allegations contradicted by this admission reinforces the conclusion that the complaint was retaliatory and pretextual, not a good-faith report of misconduct.

 “I didn’t want anyone in trouble, I was simply trying to protect my job”
     ~Katherine Lense

This admission confirms that her actions were motivated by self-preservation, not by fear, harassment, or concern for personal safety.
FA Lense expressly states that her motive was to protect her employment—and that she did not want anyone disciplined—cannot credibly claim harassment or threat. This testimony demonstrates that the complaint was defensive and retaliatory, rather than a good-faith report of misconduct. United’s decision to rely on a complaint driven by job protection, without examining motive or credibility, further establishes pretext, bias, and a failure to meet just-cause and due-process obligations under the Collective Bargaining Agreement.

“Yes. We still stayed friends and in touch until 
January of 2021”~Katherine Lense 

This admission directly contradicts her claim of being harassed by FA Blockhus. A genuine victim of harassment does not voluntarily maintain regular contact with the alleged harasser for months after the supposed misconduct. Her continued communication suggests either that the relationship was consensual/friendly or that her claims of harassment were fabricated or exaggerated for ulterior motives (e.g., job protection, retaliation)

⚖Why This Undermines Her Harassment Claim:

• Direct Contradiction: If she truly felt harassed or threatened, she would have cut off all
  contact. Instead, she admits she voluntarily stayed in touch with Blockhus until January of
  2021. 
• Friendly Relationship: Her continued communication aligns with her other testimony
  that they remained friends and were communicating normally in Oct–Nov 2020— the months
  she claims harassment took place.
• Timing Conflict: This was after the period she now claims harassment occurred — yet
  she acknowledges ongoing, voluntary contact and friendship. 
• Supports Retaliation Argument: If the relationship only soured once she feared for
  her job, it suggests her complaint was retaliatory, not based on genuine harassment.

⚖ Key Argument:

FA Lense’s Own Testimony Demonstrates Retaliatory Motive and Lack of Good Faith
FA Lense’s own sworn testimony repeatedly undermines her credibility and strongly suggests that her allegations were retaliatory in nature and not made in good faith. Her admissions of continued friendship, ongoing communication, uncertainty regarding intimacy, vacation planning, forgiveness of alleged conduct, and inability to even recall critical details are fundamentally inconsistent with claims of harassment or threat. These contradictions demonstrate that the allegations were not contemporaneously perceived as unwelcome or hostile, but were instead raised only after FA Blockhus indicated he intended to report her conduct to the company. United’s acceptance of these shifting and internally inconsistent claims—without authentication, verification, or meaningful investigation—further supports the conclusion that the allegations were weaponized for self-protection and retaliation, rather than rooted in genuine misconduct.
Courts and arbitrators routinely treat inconsistent testimony and delayed reporting following protected activity as strong evidence of retaliatory motive and pretext. FA Lense’s own admissions, combined with United’s failure to scrutinize them, materially undermine any finding of just cause and support claims of wrongful termination, breach of contract, and retaliation.
 

“Some threatening messages, but he would apologize for it and then I will forgive him and then like remain friends again.”~Katherine Lense

This statement is untrue, however, if someone testified that they forgave a person for sending them threatening text messages, but months later their employer initiates criminal charges on their behalf, the legitimacy of the charges could be challenged on several legal grounds. The key issues involve credibility, waiver, employer involvement, and potential retaliatory motives. This materially undermines the legitimacy of any later criminal or disciplinary escalation. A complainant who admits under oath that she forgave the alleged conduct and voluntarily resumed a friendship demonstrates that the messages were not perceived at the time as serious threats, nor as conduct warranting immediate reporting or intervention.

⚖Credibility & Legal Issues With Forgiveness Followed by Charges:

1. Credibility of the Accuser:
If a witness testifies that they “forgave” the alleged conduct and remained friends afterward, it
undermines the seriousness and credibility of their claim.
Courts and juries will ask: If the conduct was truly threatening, why was it forgiven at the
time and the friendship continued?
2. Waiver / Inconsistency:
By forgiving the conduct, the accuser demonstrates it was not perceived as serious or threatening
enough to warrant immediate action.
Later re-characterizing the same, alleged conduct months later as grounds for criminal charges
creates an inconsistency that can be used to impeach their credibility.
3. Employer Overreach:
If United — not the alleged victim — pushes criminal charges, it suggests retaliation, pretext, or
ulterior motives (e.g., protecting the company, silencing an employee).
This raises due process concerns and could undermine the legitimacy of the prosecution.
4. Retaliatory Motive:
If the timing of the charges aligns with protected activity (such as reporting harassment, exercising
FMLA rights, or filing grievances), it strongly supports a retaliation claim.
Courts recognize suspicious timing and shifting justifications as evidence of pretext (see
Burlington N. & Santa Fe Ry. v. White, 548 U.S. 53 (2006)).

Why This Undermines Her Claim:

• Contradiction to Harassment: A genuine victim of harassment does not “remain friends”
  with the alleged harasser.
• Voluntary Continuation: FA Lense admits that even after what she describes as
  “threatening messages,” she then claims to “forgave him” and chose to continue the romantic
  relationship.
• Undermines Fear Element: Harassment requires conduct that is unwelcome and creates
  fear or hostility. Lense’s admission shows acceptance, forgiveness, and voluntary continuation of
  contact.
• Supports Defense Argument: This portrays the relationship as complicated and
  consensual, not one-sided harassment.
• Legal Weakness: Courts often dismiss harassment claims where the accuser continues
  voluntary friendly/intimate contact (see e.g., credibility findings in harassment cases where
  continued social interaction negates “unwelcome” element).