By Cathy Bussewitz CATHY BUSSEWITZ and WYATTE GRANTHAM-PHILIPS Associated Press

Copyright

NEW YORK — After the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, numerous workers were fired for their comments on his death, among them MSNBC political analyst Matthew Dowd.

Several conservative activists sought to identify social media users whose posts about Kirk they viewed as offensive or celebratory, targeting everyone from journalists to teachers. Right-wing influencer Laura Loomer said she would try to ruin the professional aspirations of anyone who celebrated Kirk’s death.

It’s far from the first time workers lost their jobs over things they say publicly — including in social media posts. Still, the speed of the firings raised questions about worker rights versus employer rights.

In the U.S., laws can vary across states, but overall, there’s very little legal protections for employees who are punished for speech made in and out of private workplaces.

“Most people think they have a right to free speech … but that doesn’t necessarily apply in the workplace,” said Vanessa Matsis-McCready, associate general counsel and vice president of HR Services for Engage PEO. “Most employees in the private sector do not have any protections for that type of speech at work.”

The prevalence of social media made it increasingly common to track employees’ conduct outside of work and to dox people, or publish information about them online with the intent of harming or harassing them.

Employers have a lot of leeway

Protections for workers vary by state. In New York, if an employee participates in a weekend political protest but doesn’t associate themselves with the organization that employs them, their employer cannot fire them for that activity when they return to work. If that employee is at a weekend company event and talks about their political viewpoints, making others feel unsafe or targeted by discrimination or harassment, then they could face consequences at work, Matsis-McCready said.

Most of the U.S. defaults to “at-will” employment law — essentially employers can choose to hire and fire as they see fit.

“The First Amendment does not apply in private workplaces to protect employees’ speech,” said Andrew Kragie, an attorney who specializes in employment and labor law at Maynard Nexsen. “It actually does protect employers’ right to make decisions about employees, based on employees’ speech.”

Kragie said there are “pockets of protection” around the U.S. under various state laws, such as statues that forbid punishing workers for their political views. But interpretation of how that is enforced changes, he notes, making the waters murky.

Steven T. Collis, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin and faculty director of the school’s Bech-Loughlin First Amendment Center, also points to some state laws that say employers can’t fire their workers for “legal off duty conduct.” But there’s often an exception for conduct seen as disruptive to an employer’s business or reputation, which could be grounds to fire someone over public comments or social media posts.

“In this scenario, if somebody feels like one of their employees has done something that suggests they are glorifying or celebrating a murder, an employer might still be able to fire them even with one of those laws on the books,” Collis said.

For public employees, which can range from school teachers and postal workers to elected officials, the process is different. The First Amendment plays a unique role when the government is the employer, Collis explains. The Supreme Court ruled that if an employee is acting in a private capacity but speaking on a matter of public concern, they could be protected. Still, he noted government employers can discipline a worker if they determine such conduct will interfere with the government’s ability to do its job.

Some in the public sector worked to restrict speech in the aftermath of Kirk’s death. For instance, leaders at the Pentagon unveiled a “zero tolerance” policy for posts or comments from troops that make light of or celebrate Kirk’s killing.

The policy, announced by the Pentagon’s top spokesman Sean Parnell on social media Thursday, came hours after numerous conservative military influencers and activists began forwarding posts they considered problematic to Parnell and his boss, defense secretary Pete Hegseth.

“It is unacceptable for military personnel and Department of War civilians to celebrate or mock the assassination of a fellow American,” Parnell wrote Thursday.

A surge of political debate

Social media makes it easier than ever to share opinions about politics and major news events. That leaves a record and, in times of escalating political polarization, those declarations can be seen as damaging to the reputation of an individual or their employer.

“People don’t realize when they’re on social media, it is the town square,” said Amy Dufrane, CEO of the Human Resource Certification Institute. “They’re not having a private conversation with the neighbor over the fence. They’re really broadcasting their views.”

Political debates increasingly make their way into workplaces, as well.

“The gamification of the way we communicate in the workplace, Slack and Teams, chat and all these things, they’re very similar to how you might interact on Instagram or other social media, so I do think that makes it feel a little less formal and somebody might be more inclined to take to take a step and say, ‘Oh, I can’t believe this happened,'” Matsis-McCready said.

Employers are not ready

Many human resource professionals expressed that they’re unprepared to address politically charged discussions in the workplace, according to the Human Resource Certification Institute. Those conversations will happen, so employers need to set policies about what is acceptable or unacceptable workplace conduct, Dufrane said.

“HR has got to really drill down and make sure that they’re super clear on their policies and practices and communicating to their employees on what are their responsibilities as an employee of the organization,” Dufrane said.

Many employers are reviewing their policies on political speech and providing training about what appropriate conduct looks like, both inside and outside the organization, she said. The brutality of Kirk’s killing may have led some to react more strongly after his death.

“Because of the violent nature of what some political discussion is now about,” Matsis-McCreedy said, “I think there is a real concern from employers that they want to keep the workplace safe and that they’re being extra vigilant about anything that could be viewed as a threat, which is their duty.”

Employees can also be seen as ambassadors of a company’s brand, and their political speech can dilute that brand and hurt its reputation, depending on what is said and how it is received. That leads more companies to act on what employees are saying online, she said.

“Some of the individuals that had posted and their posts went viral, all of a sudden the phone lines of their employers were just nonstop calls complaining,” Matsis-McCready said.

Still, experts don’t anticipate a significant change in how employers monitor their workers speech — noting that online activity came under the spotlight for at least the last 15 years.

Collis noted, “Employers are already and have been for a very long time, vetting employees based on what they’re posting on social media.”