Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—ARBITRATION—Washington Post lacked just cause to fire columnist over social media posts, arbitrator rules, (Sep 2, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

“Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence.”

A Washington Post opinion columnist who was fired after publishing social media posts following the 2025 killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk must be reinstated with full back pay and benefits, an arbitrator recently ruled. The arbitrator found that the newspaper lacked the "good and sufficient cause" required under its collective bargaining agreement and failed to establish that columnist Karen Attiah engaged in the gross misconduct necessary to justify termination without progressive discipline. Attiah, a columnist represented by the Washington-Baltimore News Guild, had worked at the newspaper for 11 years and had no prior disciplinary record (Washington-Baltimore News Guild, Local 32035 and The Washington Post (Espinosa, Arb., Aug. 20, 2026)).

The dispute arose after the columnist posted comments on Bluesky in the immediate aftermath of Kirk's death. Among other things, she posted: “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence.” She also posted: “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”

Management concluded that her posts violated company social media policies, harmed the newspaper's reputation, and created security concerns because of the public reaction they generated. The newspaper terminated her employment on September 11, 2025, for alleged gross misconduct.

Social media posts. According to the arbitration award, the termination letter cited provisions of both the newsroom and company-wide social media policies. The newspaper argued that the posts disparaged individuals based on race and gender and that the resulting backlash created safety risks for employees. Management also pointed to concerns that the posts lacked professionalism, empathy, and collegiality during a period of intense public attention and political tension.

Viewpoints were the point. The union challenged the termination, arguing that the columnist, as an opinion columnist, was employed to express viewpoints on public issues and that her posts addressed societal responses to political violence rather than attacking individuals because of protected characteristics. The union also asserted that the newspaper failed to conduct a meaningful investigation before firing her and improperly relied on threats made by third parties in evaluating her conduct.

No disparagement found. The arbitrator rejected the newspaper's claim that the posts violated its anti-disparagement policy. The decision found that the comments referred to specific individuals or a subset of individuals who "espouse hatred and violence," rather than to all white men as a group. The arbitrator concluded that identifying race or gender in commentary does not by itself constitute disparagement on the basis of protected characteristics and found the newspaper's interpretation of the posts unsupported by their actual language and context.

Threats not attributable to her. The arbitrator also rejected the employer's reliance on threats made against the columnist and others following the posts. The arbitrator explained that those threats were made by third parties and could not properly be attributed to the columnist. Moreover, the newspaper's own social media policy emphasized protecting journalists who become targets of online harassment and did not suggest employees could be disciplined because others reacted with threats.

Discharge was excessive. Although the arbitrator concluded that some of the posts could reasonably be viewed as lacking empathy or collegiality given the timing and circumstances, the award found that such concerns did not amount to gross misconduct. The arbitrator emphasized that the columnist had no prior discipline and that management terminated her employment roughly four hours after first discussing the posts. The newspaper could have pursued alternatives such as interviewing her, requesting removal of the posts, or imposing lesser discipline.

Finding that the newspaper failed to prove gross misconduct or establish good and sufficient cause for discharge, the arbitrator sustained the grievance and ordered reinstatement with full back pay and lost benefits.

Attorneys: Jessica Kastin and Makayla Halkinrude for The Washington Post. Amos Laor and Michael Sosnick for Washington-Baltimore News Guild.

Companies: The Washington Post; Washington-Baltimore News Guild, TNG-CWA Local No. 32035

Cases: Labor Arbitration Discharge