US Judge Limits United Airlines Liability in Denson Revenge Porn Suit
A US District Judge has largely sided with United Airlines, dismissing most claims in a former flight attendant's lawsuit alleging the carrier was culpable for a pilot's revenge porn crimes. The ruling limits the airline's potential liability to events after April 2024.
Court Dismisses Most Claims Against United
A US District Judge has dismissed the majority of claims in a lawsuit brought against United Airlines by Lisa Denson, a former flight attendant. The legal action, filed in October 2025, accused the Chicago-based carrier of creating a hostile work environment, unauthorised disclosure of intimate images, and negligent hiring of pilot Andrew Hill.
Judge Nina Y. Wang ruled earlier this week, during the week of 19 August 2026, that United Airlines could not plausibly have known about Hill's conduct until it was reported to law enforcement.
This decision specifically dismissed Denson's claims related to vicarious liability for the distribution of intimate images and the hostile work environment, on the grounds that the alleged harassment occurred entirely outside the workplace and was not reported internally to the airline.
Airline's Liability Restricted to Post-April 2024 Actions
While most claims were dismissed, the court has allowed a claim for negligent hiring, training, and retention of Andrew Hill to proceed. However, Judge Wang stipulated a significant limitation: United Airlines cannot be held accountable for any events that transpired before April 2024.
It was in April 2024 that law enforcement first informed United that Hill was under police investigation, specifically accused of impersonating Denson online and posting intimate photographs of her and at least ten other women, some of whom were also United Airlines employees. Despite this knowledge, United did not terminate or suspend Hill, allowing him to continue flying.
A United Airlines manager is also alleged to have falsely told law enforcement that he had spoken with Denson and offered support, according to Judge Wang's opinion order. Hill's employment was only terminated after his arrest in July 2024.
Pilot's Criminal Conduct Detailed
Lisa Denson joined United Airlines in 2015 and met Andrew Hill, a pilot, in 2016. Their consensual relationship, as described in Denson's lawsuit, involved Hill requesting and receiving sexually explicit photos and videos. Hill also allegedly made covert recordings of them during layovers and took photos of Denson partially clothed in her uniform.
Denson discovered in 2017 that Hill had shared some of these images online without her consent, but continued the relationship after he promised to remove them. The relationship ended in 2021 due to Hill's infidelity. Following the breakup, Hill's behaviour reportedly became more volatile, including bombarding Denson with messages and stalking her.
After Denson reported Hill to police in Utah, the investigation revealed he had posted intimate images of Denson and at least ten other women, many of whom were United Airlines flight attendants. Hill pleaded guilty in late 2024 to eight felony counts of distributing adult pornography, one count of felony stalking, and one count of felony sexual extortion.
Industry Implications and Precedent
This ruling clarifies the boundaries of corporate liability for employee misconduct that occurs primarily outside the workplace, particularly when the company claims no prior knowledge. For the aviation industry, it underscores the importance of internal reporting mechanisms and timely responses once allegations of serious criminal behaviour by staff emerge.
The case also brings to light previous instances; in 2019, United Airlines paid $321,000 to settle a revenge porn lawsuit initiated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on behalf of another flight attendant.
The current decision demonstrates that while airlines may not be held responsible for actions unknown to them, their response to information from law enforcement about employee conduct, especially concerning other staff members, remains subject to judicial scrutiny. Future legal challenges may further define an airline's duty of care in such circumstances.
Get The Post.
The global travel stories that matter, three mornings a week. Free.
