Why do people keep referring to Hill like this is the same situation? Hill wasn't employed by KC when it happened. Hill took the punishment he was given and, to my knowledge, hasn't been in any trouble since.

Hunt commited these acts while employed by the chiefs. Completely different. He likely violated employee policies, and apparently lied about the incident, likely also a violation. Hill did none of that as he wasn't their emoployee at the time.

Hill had a past incident that happened years prior to them employing him. They were aware of it, felt it no longer reflected his character, chose to employ him, and he's been fine.

Hunt's action reflect his current character. This is not the same thing.