Settlements top $1m for workers fired over online comments about Charlie Kirk. Should employers worry?

In the wake of the September 2025 assassination of right-wing influencer Charlie Kirk, more than 600 workers were fired, placed under investigation, or otherwise reprimanded by their employers for posting about his killing on social media.

The majority had posted critical commentary, which some Republican government officials, including Vice President JD Vance and prominent right-wing influencers, encouraged their supporters to report to employers.

In recent months, some of the employers that took action against their employees for their social media comments about Kirk’s killing have faced a reckoning of sorts. Some have paid out more than $1.2 million via lawsuit settlements to ex-employees fired over social media posts. (Other settlements have been unrelated to employment concerns.) That number might be eye-popping to some employers, and could have them reconsider how they respond to employees’ social media posts. “The settlements illustrate the limits employers can have in regulating their workers’ political rhetoric,” Axios reporters Avery Lotz and Rebecca Falconer wrote last month.

But that may not be the case for most employers, two employment attorneys told HR Brew.

Public vs. private employers. All of the settlements so far have been paid out by public employers—such as universities and state government agencies—where workers have First Amendment protections related to privately commenting on matters of public interest. In the private sector, workers generally don’t have those same protections, attorneys told us.

“Employment is at-will, employers may hire or fire at any time for any reason,” Bill Milani, an attorney with Epstein Becker Green, told HR Brew. “So it would, standing alone, be lawful for a private employer to terminate an employee for a social media post.”

That said, there are still risks and limitations for private employers as it relates to firing or otherwise reprimanding employees for social media posts. For example, some states, including California, Colorado, and New York, have off-duty conduct laws that prohibit employers from firing workers for lawful activities conducted outside of work, as long as they aren’t speaking on behalf of their employer or putting their employer’s reputation or business interests at risk.

Private-sector workers also have workplace protections including those related to wages and benefits, unionization, and treatment by their employer. In the context of social media, those protections may cover an employee complaining about a colleague being fired or reprimanded over a post.

“If the private employees are publishing complaints about the workplace work conditions, that’s protected by the National Labor Relations Act, that’s a protected activity,” Alice Jump, a partner at Reavis Page Jump, told HR Brew.

Set some ground rules. Both attorneys recommended HR establish a social media policy. It should be politically neutral, and make clear that the company doesn’t tolerate discrimination or harassment, including public posts that use hateful language or comments that would otherwise negatively affect the business or its reputation, they said.

“We always advise clients to have a politically neutral policy regarding social media. If it’s disruptive, and if the posts are discriminatory or inappropriate in a sort of sexual or discriminatory way, then they can be regulated,” Jump said. At the same time, she also suggested that a policy should “be pretty narrow and not too intrusive on employees’ private opinions or communications.”

HR should also ensure that their policy complies with the laws in the states in which they operate, and is updated at least annually, according to Milani.

The policy should also be enforced equally, both attorneys said. An employer that fires or disciplines one employee for a politically charged social media post and takes no action when another employee does the same could face allegations of disparate treatment, Jump said.

When clients approach him about employees’ social media activity, Milani asks them if they’ve encountered similar situations before and how they responded, and, if something similar were to happen again, what they would want to do in the future.

“You’re setting a precedent here, so that perspective is critical, apart from social media issues, in terms of general non-discrimination and best practice,” he said.