Suit Filed In Las Vegas Revenge Porn Video Scandal

The female firefighter at the center of a revenge porn scandal within Las Vegas Fire Rescue, has filed suit in federal court accusing the City of Las Vegas, the City of Henderson, and 12 named employees with sexual harassment, discrimination and violating her rights.

The firefighter identified in the suit as Jane Doe claims that her ex-boyfriend, Nathan Hannig, a firefighter in Henderson, improperly shared an intimate video of her. According to the complaint:

• In approximately July/August, 2017 Plaintiff and Mr. Hannig began a dating relationship.
• In approximately December 2017 Plaintiff ended the relationship with Mr. Hannig due to his obsessive and possessive behavior.
• In approximately April 2018 Plaintiff changed her phone number, partially due to Mr. Hannig’s refusal to accept the relationship had ended.
• Plaintiff assumed that Mr. Hannig had accepted the end of the relationship because he made a point to “like” several photos of Plaintiff and her new boyfriend.
• However, it appears that Mr. Hannig was merely biding his time to harm Plaintiff, likely in retaliation for ending the relationship.
• On or about June 10, 2018 at approximately 1950 Plaintiff received a phone call from a co-worker, Johnathan Cuff.
• Cuff informed Plaintiff that certain of the LVFR members were circulating a “sex video” of her.
• Later, Plaintiff discovered that associates of Mr. Hannig circulated the video at an LVFR training.

The complaint accuses LVFR of mishandling the investigation, thereby increasing the harm that occurred to Doe. The eleven-count complaint includes allegations of sexual harassment, various civil rights violations, invasion of privacy (public disclosure), civil conspiracy, and violation of Nevada’s revenge-porn statute. The revenge porn statute reads as follows:

NRS 200.780 Unlawful Dissemination of Intimate Image.

1. Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, a person commits the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image when, with the intent to harass, harm or terrorize another person, the person electronically disseminates or sells an intimate image which depicts the other person and the other person:

(a) Did not give prior consent to the electronic dissemination or the sale of the intimate image;

(b) Had a reasonable expectation that the intimate image would be kept private and would not be made visible to the public; and

(c) Was at least 18 years of age when the intimate image was created.

2. A person who commits the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image is guilty of a category D felony and shall be punished as provided in NRS 193.130.

3. The provisions of this section do not apply to the electronic dissemination of an intimate image for the purpose of:

(a) A legitimate public interest;

(b) Reporting unlawful conduct;

(c) Any lawful law enforcement or correctional activity;

(d) Investigation or prosecution of a violation of this section; or

(e) Preparation for or use in any legal proceeding.

4. A person who commits the crime of unlawful dissemination of an intimate image is not considered a sex offender and is not subject to registration or community notification as a sex offender pursuant to NRS 179D.010 to 179D.550, inclusive.

Despite the criminal nature of NRS 200.780, it does not appear that criminal charges have been filed in the case. Here is a copy of the complaint: Doe v Las Vegas COMPLAINT

More on the story.