FA Blockhus formally ended the romantic aspect of his relationship with FA Lense.
This decision followed several months of increasingly erratic and jealous behavior by FA Lense, particularly regarding FA Blockhus’s interactions with other colleagues. While FA Blockhus sought to disengage from any romantic involvement, he continued to interact with FA Lense in a respectful and civil manner, consistent with maintaining professionalism and personal decency.

After the romantic relationship ended by FA Blockhus, he made efforts to repair the relationship on a non-romantic, amicable basis. However, rather than improving, FA Lense’s behavior toward him escalated and became increasingly erratic and belligerent, as reflected in her subsequent text message communications. These communications demonstrate heightened emotional volatility following the termination of the romantic relationship and are inconsistent with a narrative of harassment by FA Blockhus.

In her sworn testimony, FA Lense admitted that multiple threatening and inappropriate text messages in the white frames, originated from her  own phone number and were saved under her contact information, thereby confirming their authenticity and source. Despite this admission, United made no inquiry whatsoever into FA Lense’s conduct, took no investigative steps to assess whether her messages violated company policy, and ignored communications that were plainly inconsistent with United’s “Working Together” guidelines governing professionalism and employee conduct.

By contrast, United accepted unauthenticated text message screenshots submitted by FA Lense only after she claimed that her job had been threatened. These screenshots lacked fundamental identifying information, including a phone number, date, year, metadata, or circumstantial context establishing authorship or timing. United did not attempt to verify their authenticity, did not request carrier records or message logs, and did not confront FA Blockhus with the alleged messages or ask whether he sent them.

This stark contrast demonstrates selective enforcement and unequal scrutiny. United scrutinized FA Blockhus based solely on unverified allegations while wholly disregarding FA Lense’s admitted threatening and inappropriate communications, which were supported by direct testimony and identifiable source information.
United’s failure to investigate FA Lense’s admitted misconduct—while relying exclusively on her unverified screenshots—demonstrates investigative bias, bad faith, and a predetermined outcome, in violation of the just cause and due-process protections of the Collective Bargaining Agreement. This disparity further supports findings of pretext, retaliation, and wrongful termination.