Despite this acknowledgment and agreement, United (Frank Hester) nevertheless proceeded with the investigation during FA Blockhus’s absence. Most significantly, the company scheduled investigatory proceedings while fully aware that FA Blockhus was medically unavailable and unable to participate due to his approved FMLA leave and treatment program. Rather than postponing the matter until he could meaningfully defend himself and participate in the process, United junior supervisor/Flight Attendant Frank Hester moved forward without him and ultimately terminated his employment while he remained on protected leave.

The circumstances surrounding the termination raise substantial concerns under the FMLA because the inability of FA Blockhus to attend the February investigatory meeting was directly connected to his approved medical leave. In practical effect, the very reason United proceeded without him—and ultimately terminated him—was because he was unavailable due to his protected FMLA absence. Federal law is clear that an employer may not use an employee’s exercise of FMLA rights as a negative factor in employment decisions. While an employer may terminate an employee who happens to be on FMLA leave for legitimate and wholly unrelated reasons, the employer may not proceed adversely against the employee because the employee is unavailable as a direct result of protected leave.

Here, the timeline strongly suggests that FA Blockhus’s protected absence became intertwined with the disciplinary decision itself. United had already acknowledged that he could not participate because he was in treatment and unavailable. Yet rather than waiting until the conclusion of leave as previously agreed, the company (Frank Hester) continued with the disciplinary process in his absence, deprived him of the opportunity to participate in the investigation, and terminated him before his approved leave period had ended.

Compounding these concerns is the fact that FA Blockhus was never interviewed prior to termination. The investigation proceeded without obtaining his full account, without allowing him to respond directly to allegations, and without providing him a meaningful opportunity to assist in reviewing evidence or presenting exculpatory information. By moving forward while he was medically unavailable and unable to defend himself, United effectively deprived him of procedural protections that would ordinarily be fundamental in a just-cause investigation.

The facts further suggest that United’s stated reasons for termination may have been pretextual. The company relied upon disputed and unauthenticated evidence while simultaneously proceeding during a period in which FA Blockhus could not meaningfully participate because of his medical treatment and protected leave status. The timing of the investigation and termination, viewed together with the postponement agreement and acknowledgment of his unavailability, raises serious concerns that his FMLA leave was not merely incidental to the process, but instead became a substantial factor in the adverse employment action itself.

FA Blockhus therefore maintains that United’s actions interfered with the protections guaranteed under the FMLA by:

• proceeding with disciplinary action during approved protected leave,
• failing to postpone the investigation despite agreement to do so,
• depriving him of meaningful participation in the process while medically unavailable,
• and ultimately terminating him during the period of approved leave.

Taken together, these facts raise substantial concerns regarding whether United complied with both the letter and spirit of federal FMLA protections and whether FA Blockhus was afforded the fair and lawful process required under both federal law and the governing Collective Bargaining Agreement.