United relies on their false claim that FA Blockhus "admitted" to threatening FA Lense in a voicemail to Supervisor Kayla Howell; however, this assertion is unsupported and constitutes a misrepresentation of the actual content and context of the voicemail.
Statement Regarding Bias and Lack of Neutrality – Supervisor Kayla Howell
Supervisor Kayla Howell was assigned by United Airlines to investigate the allegations made by FA Lense against FA Blockhus. However, evidence obtained subsequent to the investigation raises serious concerns regarding Ms. Howell’s neutrality and the objectivity of her role in this matter.
As an investigator in a disciplinary proceeding, Ms. Howell had a duty to act as a neutral and impartial decision-maker. Instead, the record reflects that her approach to the investigation lacked the objectivity required for such a role.
First, Ms. Howell’s written communications demonstrate a predisposition toward a finding of wrongdoing before any meaningful investigation had been conducted. In her initial Letter of Investigation, she repeatedly referred to “your text messages” and “your voicemail” as though their authenticity and authorship had already been established, rather than using neutral qualifiers such as “alleged” or “reported.” This language reflects a presumption of guilt rather than an impartial inquiry into the facts.
Second, there is no evidence that Ms. Howell conducted a thorough or independent investigation prior to advancing the allegations. The available record does not demonstrate that she verified the authenticity of the text messages, confirmed the source of the communications, or reconciled conflicting evidence—despite these being fundamental steps in any fair investigative process.
Third, Ms. Howell’s handling of the matter, including her characterization of FA Blockhus’s communications as admissions of wrongdoing, further demonstrates a lack of objectivity. As previously established, these characterizations were not supported by the underlying evidence and were inconsistent with the actual content and context of the communications.
Supervisor Kayle Howell was a Social Activist
Additionally, publicly available statements attributed to Ms. Howell reflect strongly held personal views expressed in a manner that raises legitimate concerns about impartiality when applied to a disciplinary role. While individuals are entitled to personal opinions, the presence of such statements becomes relevant when the individual is tasked with making objective determinations affecting the employment of others.
In particular, statements reflecting generalized or categorical judgments about groups of individuals, as well as commentary that could be interpreted as endorsing or encouraging conduct inconsistent with workplace standards, raise questions about whether personal viewpoints may have influenced professional decision-making. These concerns are heightened where the individual in question is responsible for evaluating credibility, weighing evidence, and determining outcomes in sensitive employment matters.
Taken together, these factors demonstrate that Ms. Howell did not approach this investigation as a neutral fact-finder. Instead, the record reflects a process in which conclusions appear to have been formed in advance, evidence was not properly verified, and communications were framed in a manner that presumed wrongdoing.
The integrity of any disciplinary process depends on the impartiality of those conducting it. Where the decision-maker demonstrates bias, fails to apply neutral standards, or allows external considerations to influence the evaluation of evidence, the resulting determination cannot be considered reliable.
Accordingly, Ms. Howell’s role in this investigation raises serious concerns regarding the fairness and validity of the process that led to Mr. Blockhus’s termination.
Howell set the stage for the demise of FA Blockhus before he was even
aware there was a case against him.
This is the person United has tasked to investigate harassment. It can be argued by her public post that Howell maintains a level of distain for a particular section of society, “You have stolen more than we could ever loot" I do not think it would need to be debated about who Ms. Howell is attempting to demonize a sector of society with her public post and the accusations displayed. Supervisor Howell oversee flight Attendants that fall within this same sector of society that she attempts to demonize.
While activists can bring attention to issues of fairness and advocate for changes in policies and systems, individual decisions are usually not made using legal authority. If there are concerns about fairness or justice in a specific situation, activist are not prone to follow established legal processes nor appeal mechanisms provided by the relevant facts. In Howell initial Letter of investigation to FA Blockhus, Howell used language such as “your text messages” and “Your voice mail” purposely omitting the terms “your alleged” or “your suspected” Though Howell nor anyone at United have been able to show they conducted any king of investigation.
Mischaracterization of Voicemail
On Feb 4th an email was received that I was under an investigation from charges brought to the company by FA Lense shortly after being made aware that FA Blockhus and a second co-worker were about to report her to HR based on her unacceptable conduct. That morning I spoke extensively with supervisor, Mrs. Kayla Howell.
The voicemail left by FA Blockhus for his supervisor, Kayla Howell, was later mischaracterized in a manner that raises serious concerns regarding bias and the accuracy of United’s conclusions. Specifically, Ms. Howell asserted that FA Blockhus had “admitted” to sending the alleged threatening text messages submitted by FA Lense. However, this characterization is not supported by the underlying evidence.
Subsequent discovery, including FA Blockhus’s complete phone records and history, demonstrated that there was no connection between his phone and the text messages relied upon by FA Lense. In addition, there was no phone number associated with those messages. These objective findings directly contradict the assertion that he admitted to sending such messages.
Despite the existence of this exculpatory evidence, United continued to rely on the allegation and the purported “admission” as part of its justification for termination. This raises significant concerns regarding the integrity of the investigative process and the extent to which contradictory evidence was properly considered.
A fair and impartial investigation requires that conclusions be grounded in verifiable evidence and that any inconsistencies be meaningfully addressed. Here, the available phone records and identifying information undermine the reliability of the text message evidence and call into question the accuracy of the conclusions drawn from it.
Accordingly, the continued reliance on a claimed “admission” that is not supported by objective evidence, and is in fact contradicted by the record, reflects a failure to properly evaluate the facts and further demonstrates the flawed nature of the investigation in this matter.
Voice Message to Supervisor Howell Brakedown
United Repetitive false Claimed that FA Blockhus "Admitted Guilt"
United's repeated claims that FA Blockhus "admitted guilt" but has not provided a specific
quote or example to support this assertion raises questions about the accuracy and validity of
their claim.
II.Blockhus Voice Mail to Ms. Howell breakdown
Hey Kayla this is Derek, I just got the email saying the reason I am being investigated, it’s
RIDICULOUS! That’s an ex girlfriend I use to date who we had a weird relationship and she was
like, this is completely I can explain this whole thing like text messages there is a reason,
(The "reason" was Lenses' retaliation against Blockhus after he notified her that he and a coworker,
would be reporting her to the company if she did not harassing them)
anyways, I am so glad, I’m so relieved that this is what it is
(FA Blockhus is "releived" because he is well aware Lense is trying to create a false case against him in retaliation that she will not be able to prove.)
I can’t imagine what else it could have been. So anyways basically I threat,
(The "threat" Blockhus is referring to it reporting Lense to the company for harassment, NOT about any text messages as Kayla was attempting to convey in an act of BIAS)
well she was sending out rumors about me to United
(Here Blockhus in the very begining informs United of harassment by Lense)
and I threatened to go to HR
(Here the word "Threat" word is clearified yet Kayla purposly misrepresents this obvouse fact in order to incriminate Blockhus)
and that’s why she did this
(here Blockhus is clearly implying Lense is retaliating against him)
I mean I threated to
(Again Blockhus here is refering to reporting Lense to HR and NOT her false text messages.)
but I would never do that because I do still care about her and because I threatened
(Again Blockhus here is refering to reporting Lense to HR and NOT her false text messages.)
that’s why she did it I have witnesses I have voice recordings of myself messages with her saying that please don’t talk and spread rumors about me and another flight attendant and things of that nature and I did mention to her I was going to go to HR Because she was putting things into United those messages between me and her were private on our private lines
(Here Blockhus was clearly referring to his voice messages to Ms. Lense and her harassing text messages to him NOT Lenses' fake text)
so I don’t know how that works with United and there is a huge back story to that, um this is easily fixed, thank you very much.
United claim that in a voice message to Ms. Howell, FA Blockhus "admitted guilt," but they have failed to provide any reference or quote to substantiate this claim. As a result, United's assertions should be considered untruthful and bias.
III.Blockhus Retracted Initial Statement
FA Blockhus’s supervisor, Kayla Howell, advised him that because Corporate Security had become involved, United had effectively already determined his guilt. According to FA Blockhus, Ms. Howell further stated that, if he wished to “keep his job,” his only remaining option was to “take responsibility,” issue an apology, and submit a written statement to management reflecting that position.
This guidance is significant because it provides context for why, without even knowing the full details of the acusations made by FA Lense, FA Blockhus initially submitted a written statement to members of United management. At the time, he was under considerable emotional distress, had just become aware of serious false allegations, and believed—based on his supervisor’s representations—that submitting such a statement was necessary to preserve his employment.
Shortly thereafter, however, FA Blockhus recognized that the statement could be misconstrued as self-incriminating and did not accurately reflect his position. He promptly retracted it, notified management that the submission should be disregarded, and advised that he would provide an official statement clarifying his position.
Importantly, nowhere within the statement did FA Blockhus admit to sending the alleged text messages attributed to him by Ms. Lense. To the contrary, his position remained that he denied involvement in the alleged communications and denied engaging in harassing conduct.
The characterization of this initial statement as an “admission” is therefore inconsistent with its content and context. A statement made under pressure, later withdrawn, and expressly clarified cannot reasonably be interpreted as proof of wrongdoing—particularly where the individual subsequently issued a correction and maintained a consistent denial.
Accordingly, United’s reliance on this withdrawn communication as evidence of guilt raises concerns regarding the fairness and objectivity of the investigative process. Any conclusion drawn from the statement must be evaluated in light of the circumstances under which it was made, the prompt retraction that followed, and the absence of any direct admission regarding the alleged text messages.