The recent national attention following the fatal shooting of political commentator Charlie Kirk has intensified public debate about political expression, raising questions about what actions employers can take to mitigate reputational harm to their business based on the personal views shared by their employees in both workplace and non-workplace settings.
The line that stands between one’s personal politics and professional responsibilities has never been thinner. Employers may wish to remind their employees about the potential repercussions of making public political statements or sharing strong opinions online or in the workplace, particularly on social media. They should do so cautiously and carefully weigh workplace policies as well as organizational reputation against evolving legal protections.
Protected Concerted Activity
While maintaining a respectful workplace is a legitimate goal, employers must balance that interest against employees’ rights. For private-sector employers, Section 7 of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) protects employees’ right to engage in “protected concerted activity,” meaning actions employees take together—or on behalf of their coworkers—to improve wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment.
This protection covers employees’ discussions about these topics, whether they occur in person or online. Tweets, posts, and workplace conversations tied to these topics often qualify for protection, even if they are critical of management or politically charged. Overreaching employer policies that chill such activity can lead to unfair labor practice charges.
The NLRA does not protect federal, state, and local government workers.
In an article in the September 16, 2025, edition of The Washington Post, the lead paragraph read as follows:
“The wave of companies and other institutions firing or suspending employees over what they’ve said in reaction to last week’s killing of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk has expanded in recent days, as some of his supporters in and outside the government amp up a push against speech they say crosses lines.”
Thus, the question that arises in the minds of both employees and employers related to the voluminous publicity surrounding the recent Kirk assassination is whether an employee’s social media post, which is deemed to be offensive, can justify the potential termination of such an employee. The short answer to this inquiry is that in the private sector, as opposed to the arena of public employment, where First Amendment protections may be applicable, employers have wide discretion to discipline and even fire employees for posts which are deemed to be unduly offensive, inflammatory, or violative of their cultural or internal policies.
Private employers would be well-advised in this incendiary political climate to analyze each situation based on the facts and circumstances of the post in question, and to evaluate whether such post is violative of its internal policies, is deemed to be overly inflammatory and/or offensive to a person(s), is disparaging or defamatory to the employer or its employees or customers, is damaging to the company’s reputation or cultivated image, or is deemed to be simply inconsistent with civilized and acceptable societal discourse.
In any situation where termination may be predicated upon a social media post and where uncertainty may exist regarding potential legal exposure and/or a looming public relations crisis, it is always advisable for the employer to consult with competent employment counsel and/or a public relations crisis expert.
