In today’s hyper-connected world, a single post or comment, whether shared online or in the workplace, can bring significant attention to both the speaker and their employer. This has become especially clear in the wake of recent controversies surrounding reactions to the death of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk. Employees across industries, from aviation and healthcare to education and entertainment, have been disciplined, suspended, or terminated over personal remarks that some considered offensive, inappropriate, or violently charged.
While these cases may feel sudden or extreme, they reflect a broader trend that began gaining traction during earlier politically charged moments, such as the Black Lives Matter movement between 2013 and 2020. What was once rare, an employer terminating or disciplining an employee over off-duty speech, has become a regular feature of the modern workplace, especially when the comments touch on polarizing issues or public figures. However, the stakes today feel even higher, with the increased visibility and polarization across the country.
One of the most common misconceptions in these situations is that all speech is protected under the First Amendment. In reality, free speech protections under the U.S. Constitution only apply to government actors, not private employers. This means that in most cases, private employers are within their legal rights to discipline or terminate an employee for speech that violates internal policies, harms the employer’s reputation, or disrupts the workplace. However, this authority is not unlimited. Speech that is linked to legally protected characteristics, such as race, religion, sex, or national origin, is covered under federal laws like Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (or their state equivalents). Employers also need to consider whether an employee’s expression is tied to union activity or collective bargaining rights, which carry additional protections.
In some states, like California, New York, Illinois, and Connecticut, employees have added safeguards. These states and a few others have laws that protect lawful off-duty conduct and speech, including political activity and speech. But most states do not have such statutes. These legal nuances mean that employers must assess not only the content of the speech but also the context in which it was shared and the jurisdiction(s) where their employees are located.
Recent examples illustrate the complexity of these decisions. In the airline industry, several major carriers including American Airlines, United Airlines, and Delta took swift action against employees who appeared to celebrate or make light of Charlie Kirk’s death online. The airlines cited zero tolerance for hate speech and politically motivated violence and emphasized their commitment to maintaining respectful, inclusive environments for both staff and passengers.
In the healthcare field, a physician at Englewood Health in New Jersey resigned after allegedly celebrating Mr. Kirk’s death in front of staff. A nurse who was present for the alleged comments, who identified herself as a supporter of Kirk, reported the incident and later filed a lawsuit against both the doctor and the health system, claiming discrimination and retaliation by being placed on an unpaid suspension while the hospital investigated. The hospital released a statement clarifying that the physician resigned voluntarily and the nurse has remained employed and is now being paid. However, the lawsuit, which claims religious discrimination based on the nurse’s Christian religious beliefs, whistleblower retaliation for objecting to the doctor’s comments, and a hostile work environment under NJ state law, remains pending. This incident highlights how even in-person conversations, if reported and perceived as offensive, can spark legal challenges for employers.
The entertainment and media industries are not immune either. Comcast terminated political analyst Matthew Dowd after he suggested on air that Kirk’s inflammatory rhetoric contributed to his own fate. The company criticized the remarks as insensitive and emphasized the importance of maintaining civil discourse, even when discussing controversial public figures.
Educational institutions have also seen fallout. Universities in Texas and South Carolina expelled students and terminated faculty members who made public or social media comments perceived as celebrating Kirk’s death or disrupting memorials held in his honor.
With controversies like these becoming more common, employers must also contend with the reputational risks involved. When employees are “doxxed” (exposed online), screenshots of their posts go viral, or their remarks are picked up by media outlets, the company itself often becomes part of the narrative. Public pressure may call for immediate action, while internal staff may demand transparency, fairness, or restraint. Reacting too quickly can lead to accusations of bias or wrongful termination, particularly if the speech involves pertains to the employee’s membership in a protected group. Delaying action can be interpreted as indifference or tacit approval.
The best way for employers to manage these complex scenarios is through a coordinated internal response. Legal, human resources, and communications teams should work closely from the start of any incident. Legal counsel ensures compliance with federal and state laws and helps evaluate whether the speech in question is protected. Human resources should lead internal investigations and determine whether disciplinary action aligns with established policies. Communications teams must craft thoughtful messaging that addresses public concern while protecting the company’s reputation and avoiding further escalation. Silence, inconsistency, or missteps in tone can all cause more harm than the original incident.
To prevent future issues, companies should proactively update their employee handbooks and social media policies. These policies must be clear, specific, and legally reviewed to define what constitutes unacceptable conduct both on and off the job. Equally important is workplace training. Employees should understand that personal speech, even outside of work hours, can lead to professional consequences if it violates company values, undermines team cohesion, or creates a hostile environment. Organizations should remind staff that protected speech does not equate to consequence-free speech, especially in highly visible or sensitive roles.
Employers must also apply policies consistently. If political or controversial comments from one employee result in disciplinary action while similar comments from another are ignored, the company may be accused of selective enforcement or bias. This inconsistency can open the door to discrimination claims or even litigation. Thorough documentation of all internal decisions, investigations, and outcomes is critical not only for transparency but also as a legal defense in the event of future claims.
Ultimately, navigating employee speech in the age of social media requires a balance between accountability and fairness. With proper planning, clear policies, and cross-functional coordination, employers can respond effectively to incidents of viral speech and protect both their workforce and their reputation in an increasingly divided and digital world.
Obermayer’s Labor & Employment team is available to provide support with employee training, policy reviews, workplace investigations, and litigation defense, ensuring your organization is prepared to manage these situations and reduce legal risk.
The information contained in this publication should not be construed as legal advice, is not a substitute for legal counsel, and should not be relied on as such. For legal advice or answers to specific questions, please contact one of our attorneys.
Taylor focuses on labor and employment law, creating employee training materials on key workplace issues like hiring, discipline, termination, disability accommodations, and drug testing. She also helps clients with internal investigations and...
Read More by Author
