Security camera footage captured FA Lense
vandalizing FA Blockhus’s vehicle
Security camera footage captured FA Lense vandalizing FA Blockhus’s vehicle by slashing its tires. This objective evidence demonstrates a pattern of aggressive and hostile conduct directed toward FA Blockhus and stands in direct contradiction to the allegations she has made. Such conduct raises substantial questions regarding the credibility and reliability of her claims and the conclusions drawn from them.
Damages
As a direct consequence of the damage to his vehicle, FA Blockhus was required to replace all four tires, resulting in out-of-pocket expenses exceeding $1,000, as documented by the receipt attached hereto as an exhibit. The incident was reported to law enforcement and memorialized in a police report, which further corroborates both the occurrence of the damage and the surrounding circumstances. This evidence reflects a clear and tangible financial loss directly attributable to the conduct at issue.
Selective Enforcement
The act of vandalism committed by FA Lense was formally reported to United Airlines’ Ethics Department by FA Blockhus. Notwithstanding the seriousness of the allegation and the existence of supporting evidence, the complaint was closed the following day without any meaningful investigation or follow-up. FA Blockhus subsequently reported the incident again; however, United once more failed to conduct a substantive review and immediately closed the matter. This repeated failure to investigate documented misconduct reflects a troubling lack of diligence and consistency, and further demonstrates the one-sided and unreliable nature of United’s handling of this matter.
Reported FA Lense to United Airlines’ Ethics Department
After FA Lense’s conduct was reported to United Airlines’ Ethics Department on two separate occasions, both complaints were closed almost immediately, with no meaningful investigation or follow-up. In each instance, the matter was reportedly dismissed the following day, raising serious concerns regarding the thoroughness, neutrality, and fairness of the review process.
The allegations submitted to the Ethics Department involved conduct that warranted careful examination, including claims of harassment and related misconduct. Despite the seriousness of these concerns, there is no indication that United undertook a comprehensive inquiry, interviewed relevant witnesses, reviewed supporting evidence, or otherwise attempted to substantiate the claims before closing the matter.
The speed with which these complaints were dismissed suggests that the allegations may not have been afforded the same level of scrutiny applied elsewhere in the case. This disparity is significant because it reflects a pattern in which evidence unfavorable to FA Lense was minimized or disregarded, while allegations against FA Blockhus were accepted and pursued without comparable verification.
A fair and impartial investigative process requires consistent treatment of complaints, regardless of the individual involved. When one party’s allegations are investigated aggressively while the other party’s complaints are closed almost immediately without meaningful review, it raises legitimate concerns regarding selective enforcement and unequal treatment.
The following communication with a representative of the Ethics Department further reflects the manner in which these complaints were handled and provides relevant context regarding the closure of the reports.
