Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, RETALIATION—W.D. Wash.: Officials entitled to qualified immunity in suit by deputy coroner fired over disparaging Charlie Kirk posts, (Sep 16, 2026)

By Kathleen Kapusta, J.D.

The employee argued that he was pushing back against what he viewed as the undeserved lionization of Charlie Kirk.

A county coroner, commissioner, sheriff, and prosecuting attorney were entitled to qualified immunity on the First Amendment retaliation claims of a deputy coroner who was fired after sharing memes and other posts on Facebook that appeared not only to make light of Charlie Kirk’s death but to also suggest it was deserved. In granting summary judgment to the county officials, the federal court in Washington pointed to, among other things, the mocking and violent tone of the posts. The prosecutor, who placed the employee on a potential impeachment disclosure list due to the posts, was also entitled to prosecutorial immunity. Finally, the court found the employee’s doxing claim against the commissioner failed as a matter of law (Bromm v. Lewis County, No. 3:26-cv-05384-BHS (W.D. Wash. Sept. 14, 2026)).

After Kirk’s death, the deputy coroner shared memes about his slaying that he alleged was done to push “back on a false narrative about Charlie Kirk” that upset him. He claimed he was “opposed to how people were viewing [Kirk] as a civil rights hero.” As a result of the posts, the county attorney placed him on a potential impeachment disclosure list and he was ultimately placed on administrative leave and terminated.

He sued the county and several individual defendants, including the coroner, the commissioner, the sheriff, and the prosecuting attorney, for violating his First Amendment right to free speech. He also sued the commissioner, alleging he “doxed” him in violation of state law. The coroner, sheriff, prosecuting attorney, and commissioner all moved for summary judgment.

Prosecutorial immunity. The prosecuting attorney argued that his decision to place the employee on a potential impeachment disclosure list and issue a potential impeachment disclosure (PID) letter was covered by absolute prosecutorial immunity. The employee, for his part, argued that the decision to issue the PID letter was administrative or investigative in nature, rather than advocacy or preparation for a criminal prosecution, and therefore was unprotected.

Noting that prosecutorial immunity applies with “full force” to activities that are “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” the court explained that the issue was whether the prosector’s decision to place the employee on the list, and to inform the coroner of that decision, bore a sufficient nexus to the judicial process. The Ninth Circuit, in its 1997 Roe v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco decision, held that a prosecutor’s refusal to pursue cases based on concerns about witness credibility, and their communication of that decision to the individual’s employer, is entitled to absolute immunity.

Here, the court observed, the prosector stated that he evaluated the employee’s posts to determine whether they revealed bias or otherwise needed to be disclosed to defense counsel if the employee were called to testify. He concluded that the posts would likely be of interest to defense counsel and stated that PID letters are issued whenever issues are identified, regardless of whether the individual is presently or likely to be a witness in the future.

Further, said the court, there was no evidence the prosecutor demanded or pressured the coroner’s office to take any employment action against the employee or demanded that his role be limited in any way. Based on this, the court found the prosecutor’s decision to issue the PID list PID letter to the coroner was entitled to prosecutorial immunity and he could not be held civilly liable for those actions.

Qualified immunity. As to the prosecuting attorney’s, commissioner’s, coroner’s, and sheriff’s contention they were entitled to qualified immunity on the employee’s First Amendment retaliation claim, the court explained that the question was whether, in September 2025, it was so clearly established that his interest in sharing memes about the slaying of Charlie Kirk outweighed the county’s interests in maintaining the efficiency and public confidence such that it would be unreasonable for the defendants to think otherwise.

The court first found that the employee’s posts constituted commentary on a matter of public concern—the assassination of a prominent media figure and the views he espoused.

Regarding whether it was sufficiently clear to the defendants, at the time of their conduct, that their asserted interests in avoiding disruption to their agencies’ operations would be outweighed by the employee’s interest in making the posts, the coroner testified that he received “multiple calls and emails from citizens complaining about [the employee’s] posts” and there was some evidence that the posts threatened the working relationship between the coroner’s office and its partner agencies.

Further, given the public-facing nature of the coroner’s office and the employee’s role, and the public nature of his comments, the court found it was at least reasonably non-speculative to anticipate that his statements would cause disruption in the future. His work required him to interface both with the public and with other agencies and his Facebook profile identified him as an employee of the coroner’s office at the time he made the post.

Disparaging tone. The court also found the posts were entitled to less weight in the Pickering analysis due to their disparaging tone. One of the posts appeared to be a photo of the vocalist for the rock band Filter singing with the text “HEYYYYY Man, Nice Shot!” paired with an image of Charlie Kirk’s suspected killer; another combined an image of Charlie Kirk with a photo of the spray-painted words “Make Racists Afraid Again” and the outline of a balaclava; and a third showed the text “FA+FO=” (“f**k around and find out) followed by a picture of Charlie Kirk bleeding from his neck. These posts, said the court, were plainly mocking and violent in tone. On these facts, the court could not find the coroner’s decision to terminate the employee violated clearly established law.

As to the other defendants, the court was likewise unpersuaded that their conduct violated clearly established law. The prosecuting attorney was entitled to prosecutorial immunity and “a fortiori” was as least entitled to qualified immunity. It was also far from clear that the sheriff’s decision to restrict the employee’s role in investigations involving homicides or suspicious deaths in response to his posts and his inclusion on the PID list was a violation of clearly established law. Accordingly, the court found they were all entitled to qualified immunity.

Doxing claim. Turning finally to the employee’s doxing claim against the commissioner for the unauthorized publication of personal identifying information—he alleged the commissioner doxed him by identifying him as an employee with the county coroner’s office and sharing the coroner’s email address—the court found the commissioner had his own First Amendment right to make his post, making it exempt from the state doxing law.

Just as the employee had an interest in sharing his memes, the commissioner had an interest in criticizing him, and in communicating that criticism to his constituents, said the court, finding this claim failed as a matter of law.

The case is No. 3:26-cv-05384-BHS.

Judge: Settle, B.

Attorneys: Andreas A. Kralios (Lunde Legal) for Paul Bromm. Elena C. Bundy (Bundy Law Group) for Lewis County.

Companies: Lewis County, Washington

MainStory: TopStory Retaliation PublicEmployees Discharge Procedure StateLawClaims CoverageLiability WashingtonNews GCNNews