FEATURED
Several university employees fired for comments they made on social media in the wake of conservative Charlie Kirk’s assassination have sued over their terminations — but one lawsuit out of Indiana is emerging as a possible precedent-setting case.
The lawsuit was filed by Suzanne Swierc, former Director of Health Promotion and Advocacy for Ball State University, who was fired in September after she posted on her personal and private Facebook account about Kirk.
Swierc wrote: “Let me be clear: if you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can’t be friends. His death is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for his wife and children. I believe in the Resurrection, and while it’s difficult, I can and do pray for his soul.”
“Charlie Kirk’s death is a reflection of the violence, fear, and hatred he sowed,” she added in her post. “It does not excuse his death, AND it’s a sad truth. The shooting is a tragedy, and I can and do feel for a college campus experiencing an active shooter situation.”
Swierc went on to cite other school shootings before concluding: “Charlie Kirk excused the deaths of children in the name of the second amendment.”
Although Swierc shared it on her private Facebook profile, it was screenshot, shared on other social media accounts, and went viral. Indiana’s Republican Attorney General Todd Rokita also posted her comments.
Ball State University fired her shortly thereafter.
“Our Administration determined the post was inconsistent with the distinctive nature and trust of Ms. Swiercz’s leadership position at Ball State University and that the post caused significant disruption to the University,” the university said in a public statement.
The statement cited Hedgepeth v Britton as precedent for her termination, adding “No additional information will be released on this personnel matter.” Ball State did not respond to The College Fix’s requests for comment.
“Public employees do not relinquish their First Amendment rights as a condition of entering government service, but just like private employers, the government needs to exercise control over its employees to provide public services,” BSU President Geoffrey Mearns, quoting the court’s opinion in front of the Ball State University Senate, said in October, according to the Indiana Lawyer. “In other words, public employees, by necessity, accept certain limitations on their freedom.”
According to Jusita Law, Hedgepeth v. Britton centers on a high school teacher who posted racially insensitive comments about George Floyd’s death on her private Facebook account, which were circulated and resulted in her termination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that although she spoke as a citizen on matters of public concern, the disruption her posts caused justified her termination despite her First Amendment rights.
Swierc’s lawsuit, filed by the American Civil Liberties Union, “argues that her termination resulted directly and exclusively from the exercise of her expressive free speech rights, which she says she made ‘as a private citizen’ and ‘not pursuant to any professional duties or responsibilities that she had as an employee’ of the university,” the Indiana Lawyer reported.
Swierc has taken her termination as a sign of the threats the First Amendment is facing in today’s society.
At a No Kings Protest on Oct. 18, Swierc stated, “There are so many people across our state and our country who are hesitant to speak up, whose speech is being chilled, and that is not okay.”
She added: “We should be able to freely express ourselves. We should be able to point out injustices against ourselves and our neighbors. We should be able to advocate for the good of others, and we should be able to do all of this without the government affecting what we can and cannot say,”
ACLU of Indiana did not respond to The College Fix’s requests for comments.
Joshua Bleisch, one of Swierc’s attorneys with the ACLU, told the Indiana Lawyer that Swierc’s post centered on the national conversation, and she had the right to weigh in on her personal profile.
“You have a right to share your piece,” Bleisch said. “She’s doing it on her own time, on her own Facebook page, and it has nothing to do with her work. And so, because of that, because that’s nothing to do with her work, work should have nothing to say about what she thinks.”
What’s more, he added, her comments did not cause a disruption, like the university alleges.
“They said that there was a disruption, but it was all conclusory,” he told Indiana Lawyer. “There was no interruption to the delivery of classes for students. Suzanne does not teach. She’s not interfaced with students. So, it’s hard for me to imagine what kind of disruption may have existed that would have justified her firing.”
Graham Piro, faculty legal defense fund fellow for the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, echoed similar sentiments in a statement to The College Fix, noting mere criticism “would likely not be substantially disruptive to a large institution with a significant financial endowment.”
“Faculty members have the First Amendment right at public institutions to speak outside the classroom on matters of public concern,” Piro said via email. “The bar for disruption to university operations must be very high in order to protect the right of faculty to express themselves. And the burden is on the university to demonstrate that their operations and functions have been significantly disrupted by a faculty member’s speech.”
MORE: Two Ball State U. employees under investigation for Charlie Kirk assassination posts
