A key witness in this matter has provided both written statements and sworn testimony that are highly relevant to the issues presented in this case. This witness’s testimony offers critical insight into the events at issue and is essential to a complete and accurate understanding of the circumstances surrounding the allegations against Mr. Blockhus.

The witness’s testimony is based on direct involvement and firsthand knowledge of the events in question. The statements provided are consistent, credible, and directly relevant to the core issues of this case, including the conduct and credibility of Ms. Katherine Lense. As such, this testimony constitutes probative and admissible evidence under the applicable provisions of the Federal Rules of Evidence, including Rules 601 through 606 and 612 through 615.

Despite the importance of this evidence, United’s junior management failed to meaningfully consider or incorporate the witness’s testimony into the investigative process. In doing so, they effectively excluded evidence that would have cast substantial doubt on the credibility of Ms. Lense’s allegations. The omission of such critical witness testimony resulted in an incomplete and one-sided record.

Further compounding this issue, the witness initially reported concerns regarding Ms. Lense’s conduct to United. However, the witness later retracted that complaint out of fear of retaliation, including the potential loss of employment. This fear arose in the context of Mr. Blockhus’s termination, which demonstrated the potential consequences of raising concerns about Ms. Lense’s behavior.

The suppression or disregard of this witness testimony undermines the integrity of the investigative process. A fair and impartial investigation requires that all relevant evidence—particularly credible firsthand witness testimony—be considered and evaluated objectively. The failure to do so here reflects a process that was neither balanced nor reliable.

Accordingly, this testimony is not only admissible, but integral to a fair resolution of this matter. The witness’s account provides essential context and directly challenges the narrative relied upon by United in reaching its decision. The exclusion or minimization of this testimony further demonstrates that the investigation into Mr. Blockhus was incomplete and failed to meet the standards of fairness required under the Collective Bargaining Agreement and applicable law.

The Following are witness statements and Testimony;