Published

Free Speech at Work: What Employees and Employers Need to Know After the Charlie Kirk Fallout

Category: Employment/Management

The tragic assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has reignited a national debate not only about political violence, but also about the boundaries of free speech in the workplace. In the days following Kirk’s death, numerous employees across the country have been terminated or disciplined for social media posts expressing controversial views, some of which were interpreted as celebratory or inflammatory.

This moment echoes past flashpoints such as the Black Lives Matter protests and COVID vaccine requirements when political discourse spilled into professional environments, leaving both employees and employers navigating murky legal waters. So, what rights do employees actually have when it comes to expressing political opinions? And what responsibilities do employers bear in maintaining a respectful, legally compliant workplace?

The First Amendment: A Common Misconception

Let’s start with a critical clarification: the First Amendment protects individuals from government censorship, not from consequences imposed by private employers. In other words, private-sector employees do not have constitutional free speech rights at work. Employers generally have broad discretion to discipline or terminate employees for speech that they deem disruptive, offensive, or damaging to their brand.

Public-sector employees, however, operate under a different legal framework. Courts have held that public employees may be protected when speaking as private citizens on matters of public concern but even then, those rights are not absolute. If the speech undermines workplace efficiency or violates internal policies, disciplinary action may still be lawful.

State Laws and “Off-Duty Conduct” Protections

Some states offer additional protections. For example, California Labor Code sections 1101 and 1102 prohibit employers from disciplining employees for lawful political activity conducted off the clock. Similarly, New York law protects employees participating in political protests, provided they don’t represent their employer while doing so. Note that Arizona law does not contain similar statutory protections for employees’ lawful, off duty conduct, including political activities.

Even in states that provide such protections, there may be exceptions to the rule. For example, if an employee’s speech – whether online or in person – is seen as glorifying violence, inciting harassment, or damaging the employer’s reputation, termination may still be legally defensible.

Social Media: The New Town Square

The rise of social media has blurred the lines between personal and professional expression. Posts made on personal accounts can quickly go viral, drawing public scrutiny and employer backlash. As one HR expert put it, “People don’t realize when they’re on social media, it is the town square.”

Employers are increasingly monitoring online activity, especially when posts are linked to sensitive political events. In the wake of Kirk’s death, some employers have received floods of complaints about employees’ posts, often unsolicited, prompting swift disciplinary action.

Legal Risks and Best Practices for Employers

While employers have the right to regulate employee speech, they still must tread carefully. Disciplining employees for political views – especially if done inconsistently – may lead to claims of discrimination, retaliation, or wrongful termination. It also may undermine workplace morale and create disharmony.

With that in mind, here are some suggested best practices for employers:

  1. Review workplace policies regularly to ensure compliance with federal and state laws.
  2. Train managers to respond appropriately to politically charged incidents and other controversial employee speech issues.
  3. Apply policies consistently, regardless of the political viewpoint expressed and the person who expressed it.
  4. Separate conduct from content and impose discipline based on behavior (e.g., threats, harassment), not the political opinion itself.
  5. Document decisions with clear, objective reasoning.

Final Thoughts

The Charlie Kirk tragedy has underscored the volatile intersection of politics, speech, and employment. While employees may feel compelled to speak out, they must understand the limits of their rights in the workplace. Likewise, employers must balance brand protection with legal compliance and workplace harmony.

At Davis Miles PLLC, we help businesses and employees navigate these complex issues with clarity and confidence. If your organization needs guidance on speech policies or employment law compliance, we’re here to help.