Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LITIGATION NEWS, TRENDS—Teacher fired after Facebook post about Charlie Kirk’s death files suit, (Sep 19, 2025)

By Brandi O. Brown, J.D.

He posted “1 Nazi down” on Facebook and alleges that the district superintendent justified recommending his termination by reference to his own personal beliefs as “a man of faith” rather than any disruption.

An Iowa high school art teacher who was almost immediately put on leave, and ultimately fired the next week, after posting on social media a comment about the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk has filed suit in a federal district court in that state, alleging the school district’s actions constituted retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.

According to the teacher’s complaint, he posted on his own personal Facebook account, while off duty and not using school resources, the following statement referring to the death of the conservative activist: “1 Nazi down.” He alleges that the “post was a blunt personal reaction to a high-profile political event: speech on a matter of public concern at the very core of the First Amendment’s protections.”

“Rhetorical hyperbole.” He describes the comment “rhetorical hyperbole about a widely reported public event” that “did not threaten any person, did not incite imminent unlawful action, and was not directed at any member of the school community.” His Facebook profile did not identify him as an employee of the school district and made no reference to the district, his teaching position, or his students. He also alleges that “Nothing about the post connected his speech to his employment.”

Nevertheless, within hours of the post, community members were demanding that he be punished by his employer, he alleges, although this “politically motivated pressure campaign did not allege any disruption in [his] classroom, any failure or inadequacy in his performance, or any threat to disrupt the learning environment.” He specifies that, on information and belief, the complaints were about the viewpoint he expressed, i.e. the content of his speech.

“Man of faith” comment. The school district superintendent, he alleged, without examining whether the teacher’s post had any impact on his ability to teach or the district’s ability to provide educational services, moved immediately to condemn his viewpoint, cite his own disagreement with it, and publicly announce that he would recommend the teacher’s termination. In media interviews, the lawsuit contends, the superintendent made clear that his condemnation was “rooted in his personal beliefs, not in evidence of disruption.” The superintendent, claiming that he was speaking as “a man of faith,” expressed disappointment with the state of society and disapproval of the teacher’s expression, the complaint contends.

Termination. Within a week, the school district’s board of directors adopted the termination recommendation and ended the teacher’s employment. The teacher alleges that they acted not because his post disrupted the learning environment but instead because they disapproved of his speech, which is protected.

The complaint contains one count for First Amendment retaliation and argues that the balance of interests under Pickering favors his right as a citizen to comment on matters of public concern over the employer’s asserted interests and that at the time of the termination, it was “clearly established that a public employer may not terminate an employee for speech made as a private citizen on a matter of public concern absent evidence that the speech meaningfully impaired discipline, workplace harmony, or operational efficiency.”

The case is No. 4:25-cv-00351-RGE-WPK.

MainStory: TopStory LitigationNewsTrends PublicEmployees IndividualRights CoverageLiability Discharge GCNNews