Tara Marcelle says she doesn’t remember exactly what she said near the nurses’ station the day that the conservative activist Charlie Kirk was shot. She remembers making some dark jokes with her colleagues and, at some point, laughing. But she knows one thing for sure: It cost her her job.
Two days after the shooting, Ms. Marcelle was handed a letter of dismissal and told to pack up her things at the hospital in Phoenix where she had worked as a nurse for four years.
“Your behavior was described as disgraceful, morally unacceptable and abhorrent as you publicly expressed joy and laughter regarding the assassination of a public figure,” her termination letter read.
Ms. Marcelle, a 43-year-old Air Force veteran, said she never said Mr. Kirk deserved to be killed, but she is now among scores of people across the country who have been fired, suspended, reassigned or pushed to resign in the past two weeks for things they said about Mr. Kirk or his assassination.
Though there is no way of determining exactly how many people have faced workplace consequences, The New York Times identified more than 145 such cases through news reports, public statements and interviews with several of those targeted. Those who have faced discipline are professors and health care workers, lawyers and journalists, restaurant workers and airline employees.
They include a North Carolina police officer suspended for calling Mr. Kirk racist while also saying the shooting was horrific, a burger restaurant manager in Illinois who commented that “another one bites the dust,” and a California restaurant employee who said Mr. Kirk could “burn in hell.”
Dozens of other employees are still under investigation by their employers for statements they made.
Firings over controversial statements are not new, but they appear to have become more frequent in recent years as online armies seek to identify and assail the employers of people who say things they deem inappropriate. In the wake of Mr. Kirk’s death, Vice President JD Vance urged people to call the bosses of those who celebrated the assassination. “Call them out, and hell, call their employer,” he said.
In most cases, private-sector employers have social media policies and can fire their workers for almost any reason, as long as they do not violate statutes that protect workers, such as those that prohibit discrimination based on race, gender and other protected characteristics. But the recent firings raise questions beyond the law, about how free workers should be to share their opinions and whether employers should have to answer for their workers’ opinions.
They are also notable because of Mr. Kirk’s emphasis on open debate. He was killed on Sept. 10 in Utah while holding one of many events in which he invited students to challenge him and his beliefs.
Ms. Marcelle said it was no secret among her colleagues at work that she was on the political left. She described herself as a “typical, liberal-looking mom” with tattoos who had done a tour of Iraq in the military before becoming a nurse. She said she was open about her opinions on the world, but had always considered herself well-regarded by her bosses in the emergency department; she was promoted in May to the position of clinical nurse educator, teaching other nurses. She would have gladly apologized to anyone she offended, she said.
In addition to firing her, she said, her employer, HonorHealth, is asking her to repay $5,250 in previous tuition reimbursement.
“I feel like the only people that lose out are the people who I could help be better nurses, regardless of their politics, and the patients, no matter their political beliefs,” Ms. Marcelle said.
The company said in a statement that it would not comment on personnel matters, but that it expects “all team members to uphold the highest standards of conduct while at work.”
The firings have happened in an array of states, in areas with various political leanings.
Hannah Molitor, 27, said she felt she had landed her “dream job” when she began working for a childhood literacy program at a nonprofit in Milwaukee about a year ago. But she was fired after posting on Facebook the day that Mr. Kirk was killed.
“What happened to Charlie Kirk is horrible and no person should ever lose their life to gun violence,” the post began. “However just realize that one side of the aisle is actively fighting to bring an end to unnecessary deaths by gun violence and it was not the side Charlie was on. Yes I am making his death political, no I do not care. If all you do is spew hate, you’re bound to get some in return.”
In hindsight, Ms. Molitor said, she can understand how some might interpret her post as saying Mr. Kirk got what he deserved. Her intent, she said, was to highlight his beliefs and make a point about gun violence.
Within a few hours of her post, she was told by the president of the nonprofit, Next Door, which is not related to the neighborhood networking platform, not to return to work. By the next day, she was fired.
In a statement, Next Door’s president, Heather Mehring Grams, referred to the “personal views” expressed by the employee. “Those views did not reflect the values or mission of our organization,” she said.
Ms. Molitor said she was devastated to lose her job, but stood by what she said, wishing only that she had not shared it publicly.
In Kentucky, another person who lost her job, Amber Thibodeaux, said that it could hardly have come at a worse time. She had moved her family from Tennessee to Frankfort, the state’s capital, just five months ago to begin working at a hospital, managing ventilators and other life-support systems as a respiratory therapist.
Then, last week, she was told that someone had sent a screenshot of one of her Facebook posts to an ethics line run by her employer. Ms. Thibodeaux posts frequently about politics online, and her posts after Mr. Kirk’s killing were barbed, saying that she “won’t lose a wink of sleep” over his death and that memorials to Mr. Kirk were “like asking ppl to mourn Hitler.”
She said her page is only for friends and does not publicly identify her employer; her profile shows about 70 friends. The post that her employer referred to when firing her, she said, was one in which she shared news of Mr. Kirk’s death and wrote, “There’s no way lol….this can’t be true,” with a laughing emoji.
Now without a job, Ms. Thibodeaux is worried about not having enough money for rent, losing her health insurance and putting food on the table for her husband and son.
“We moved our entire life over here for this job because it was so promising,” she said. “This is more than a job loss.”
Several people interviewed said they were considering legal action, though their cases could be challenging. Even government employees, who have a right to speak on matters of public concern, can be fired if the speech disrupts the workplace.
Risa L. Lieberwitz, a professor of labor and employment law at the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations, said that what she found novel about the recent firings was how much companies appear to fear reprisal from the Trump administration and other politicians.
“Right now, it’s at quite an extreme level of fear that people have in speaking out,” she said.
In some cases, employers have acted while under pressure from lawmakers and other government officials.
Phillip Michael Hook, an art professor at the University of South Dakota, filed a lawsuit against university officials after they moved to fire him over a post on Facebook in which he said he had “no thoughts or prayers for this hate spreading Nazi.” He deleted the post about three hours later and made another one, apologizing. But the incident had already caused an outcry, including social media posts from the state’s Republican House speaker and governor criticizing him.
A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily stopped the university from firing the professor, while the court hears the case.
The effort to examine employees’ political statements has led some workplaces to pull camera footage and interrogate employees.
A former Republican candidate for the State Legislature in Minnesota created a frenzy when she wrote on social media that she had heard from a friend that employees at CoV Wayzata, a restaurant near Minneapolis, “were celebrating” Mr. Kirk’s death. The restaurant responded the next morning on social media, writing that managers were planning to interview “all employees” who were working the day before and review video footage.
“If we find any credible evidence of anyone representing CoV participating in any way in the activities described, those involved will be dismissed,” the managers vowed. They did not respond to messages seeking an update this week, and the former candidate said she did not know what came of the inquiry.
In at least one case, the accusations were false.
Cynthia Rehberg, an associate principal at West Side Elementary School in Elkhorn, Wis., said her school was besieged with calls last week after a conservative media personality claimed that she had said Mr. Kirk “deserves everything he got.” But the post was not from Ms. Rehberg, who had no idea who Mr. Kirk was until he was killed.
Some of the callers said they wanted to rip her heart out or drag her body behind a truck. One person told Ms. Rehberg to “Run!” and sent another message with her address. She stayed with relatives for the weekend and said she learned how to get groceries delivered for the first time.
Jason Tadlock, the superintendent of the Elkhorn Area School District, said the district has received about 1,000 angry calls. He asked for help from a state senator and issued a fact sheet to parents explaining the case of mistaken identity.
The conservative influencer later issued a correction. Ms. Rehberg returned to school on Sept. 15, with extra police officers working security. She said the First Amendment was part of what made her proud to be American, but the ordeal left her upset that someone had used their speech to unfairly target her.
“I offer nothing but heartfelt condolences to Charlie Kirk and his family, and what a tragedy,” she said. “I just don’t appreciate, I suppose, the way in which people are communicating in the world today.”
Susan C. Beachy, Sheelagh McNeill and Seamus Hughes contributed research.
Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs reports on national stories across the United States with a focus on criminal justice. He is from upstate New York.
Bernard Mokam covers breaking news.
The post A Broad Wave of Firings Followed Charlie Kirk’s Assassination appeared first on New York Times.
