Flight Attendant Sues United After Her Cheating Pilot Boyfriend Secretly Posted Intimate Photos Online

A flight attendant is suing United Airlines because her long-term boyfriend posted revealing photos of her on the internet. But the ex-boyfriend happened to be a United Airlines pilot, pilots are ‘in command’ of flights so in some sense he’s a supervisor, and that’s employment-based harassment. Or something.

She blames the airline for failing to stop th pilot from distributing intimate images of her, and she’s sued in Colorado federal court suggesting that the company was indifferent to the sexual exploitation of its employees.

United pilot Andrew Hill pled guilty last year to charges involving distributing pornography, sexual extortion and stalking.

• The flight attendant and pilot met when they worked a flight together in 2016.
  
• They began dating. This was not against company policy, although almost anyone would advise flight attendants in general not to get involved with pilots.
  
• He allegedly took photos and video of her during layovers – undressing and unclothed – in and out of uniform and shared them on the internet. This went on for five years.
  
• She discovered he was doing it in 2017, posting to Reddit under the name “TinkGoneWild.” He promised to stop and she did not break up with him.
  
• In 2021 she says she learned he was cheating on her, including with other flight attendants, and posting illicit photos of them too. She finally broke up withhim.
  
• And she claims that in 2022 and 2023 he showed up at her home, looked into her windows, left her flowers and showed up at events she’d be at.

Another United pilot was sentenced to prison for engaging in similar conduct with a different flight attendant, so this flight attendant can claim they were on notice as to the risks and failed to take action. They were sued by the EEOC over it in 2018, and the settlemnet included overhauling sexual harassment policies (this settlement came in 2020, after the bulk of activity in this case, however).

The police investigation discovered that he was still posting images of her into 2024 and rather bizarrely he’s alleged to have claimed to be her online in order to solicit sex from other forum users.

She blames United for the whole thing, since she didn’t receive sexual harassment training in 2015 to know that involving herself in this was a bad idea? Or that sticking with it even after she discovered he was taking and posting photos of her online was a bad idea? To be clear, she is suing United Airlines and not the person who did the thing. She’s seeking relief under:

• Title VII (sex discrimination / hostile work environment). United allegedly “created, maintained, fostered, participated in, and/or ratified a hostile work environment” and failed to take reasonable steps to protect flight attendants from harassment tied to the pilot’s conduct.

• Federal civil claim for disclosure of intimate images (non‑consensual image sharing). She seeks relief under the federal private right of action for nonconsensual intimate images, which authorizes actual damages or liquidated damages of $150,000, plus injunctive relief and fees. (Violence Against Women Act 2022 civil remedy codified at 15 U.S.C. § 6851.)

• Colorado state‑law negligence theories (e.g., negligent training/supervision/retention). United allegedly failed to implement or enforce policies/training to prevent and address harassment and online image abuse despite prior notice and experience with similar misconduct.

United will claim that because the pilot couldn’t take tangible employment actions (hire, fire, demote, etc.), he’s a co‑employee, and not a “supervisor,” so United is only liable if it knew or should have known about his actions and failed to act reasonably and was therefore negligent.

They’ll point to policies and reporting channels that were available to the employee that she failed to use. And they’ll argue that it took action when it had a factual basis to do so, and that any delay was a function of collective bargaining and Railway Labor Act discipline constraints.

Taken together, I’d expect United to avoid strict liability for a hostile work environment claim and damanges will be capped at $300,000 under 42 U.S.C. § 1981a(b)(3). The settlement value of the case, then, isn’t going to be material to the airline.

However, the flight attendant will argue the airline was on notice with nearly identical facts, so they knew the risks and failed to take stronger steps against it. She’s 50-50 on surviving a motion for summary judgment. But she’ll only be able to obtain punitive damages if she can show malice or reckless indifference on United’s part.

In any case, the federal revenge porn statute allows the victim to sue the person who made the non‑consensual disclosure. It doesn’t create vicarious liability for an employer over an employee’s off‑duty bad conduct – although a district court n the Eastern District of Washington allowed a claim to proceed against T‑Mobile where the employee his custodial role over customer devices — facts far stronger than a pilot sharing a partner’s images, but the closest I am finding to recent employer liability here. And United certainly did not encourage or support the disclosures.

United also probably won’t face liability for negligent hiring and supervision, since they weren’t put on notice until the conduct had ceased. It wasn’t foreseeable in his case and his superseding criminal act is the proximate cause of harm, not a failure by United.

The severity of the conduct will create sympathy for the flight attendant here, especially if this ever reaches a jury. Indeed, I have sympathy for this woman. She got involved with a terrible guy, and made bad choices. But at the end of the day it was the pilot’s conduct, the flight attendant herself was aware of it (in 2017) and continued to see him, and legal semantics aside it’s just hard to see how this is United’s fault?

(HT: Paddle Your Own Kanoo)