A $1.9 Million Lesson: Why Public Employers Can’t Punish Employees for Their First Amendment Protected Opinions

Last week, the University of Tennessee System agreed to pay former anthropology professor Tamar Shirinian nearly $1.9 million to settle a lawsuit over her firing. Dr. Shirinian was terminated after she made a harsh, personal comment on her own social media account in the hours after Charlie Kirk’s assassination last September. The university moved quickly to place her on leave, and ultimately fired her “for misconduct” the following February. 

The settlement, approved by the UT Board of Trustees and still pending sign-off from the Governor and Attorney General, closes the book on litigation that was headed for a jury trial in January 2027. And it’s not an outlier. Around the same time, Austin Peay State University reinstated a professor and paid him $500,000 after firing him over a social media post referencing Kirk, and a former Ball State University staff member collected $225,000 after being fired for a Facebook comment about him. 

Three settlements, three different institutions, one common denominator: each was a public employer disciplining an employee for speech made away from work, on a personal account, about a matter of public concern. That distinction, public versus private employer, is the whole ballgame, and it’s worth explaining why. 

The Constitution Restrains Government, Not Your Boss 

The First Amendment protects citizens from government censorship. It does not, generally, apply to private employers. If you work for a private company and you post something your employer doesn’t like, that company can typically discipline or fire you for it (subject to certain union organizing or working conditions discussion, state-law carve-outs, like protections for political activity or “off-duty conduct” statutes that vary widely). A private employer isn’t the government, so the First Amendment isn’t in play. 

A public employer is different. A public university, a school district, a city government, a state agency, these are arms of the government, and when they discipline an employee for what that employee said, they are the government punishing speech. That triggers constitutional scrutiny that a private employer never has to worry about. 

The Test: Pickering and Connick 

Courts don’t treat every complaint from a public employee as a constitutional violation, an employer still has to be able to run its operations. The framework courts use, built primarily on two Supreme Court cases, Pickering v. Board of Education and Connick v. Myers, generally asks two things: 

1. Did the employee speak as a private citizen, on a matter of public concern? Speech about politics, public safety, government policy, or other topics of genuine public interest generally qualifies. Speech that’s really just a personal workplace grievance usually does not. 

1. Does the employer’s interest in efficient operations outweigh the employee’s interest in speaking? This is where courts weigh whether the speech actually disrupted the workplace, undermined discipline or working relationships, or impaired the employee’s ability to do the job, or whether the employer is really just punishing the employee because it didn’t like the viewpoint. 

There’s an important companion doctrine from Garcetti v. Ceballos: if an employee is speaking pursuant to their official job duties, not as a private citizen but as part of the job itself, the First Amendment protection can disappear entirely. A subsequent decision, Lane v. Franks limited Garretti and protects testimony, even if it is part of your job. That’s why the “private citizen, personal account, after hours” framing so often matters so much in these cases. An employee posting on a personal Facebook page, on their own time, about a national news event, is about as far from “official job duties” as speech gets. 

Why the Settlement Was the Right Outcome 

Applying that framework, the Tennessee settlements make sense. A comment on a personal social media account, made after hours, about a matter of intense national public interest, a political assassination, sits squarely in the category of citizen speech on a matter of public concern. That doesn’t mean the speech has to be tasteful, kind, or something the employer agrees with. The First Amendment’s protection is often at its strongest precisely when the speech is unpopular, harsh, or upsetting to some listeners. If the government could fire public employees only for saying things everyone likes, the protection wouldn’t mean anything. 

For the disruption side of the balance, public employers face a real burden. It’s not enough that a comment is controversial or that some members of the public are angry about it. Courts have generally required something closer to actual, material interference with the employer’s operations, not just public backlash or a wave of angry phone calls. When institutions skip that analysis and jump straight to termination because a story is generating outside pressure, they are exposing themselves to exactly the kind of liability we’re now seeing paid out in the millions. 

That’s also why UT’s Board Chair candidly acknowledged that continuing to litigate would consume resources better spent on the university’s mission. Settlements like this one are often less a statement about the underlying politics of any particular comment and more a recognition of legal exposure: when a public employer disciplines an employee for protected speech, it is difficult and expensive to defend, and the taxpayers ultimately foot the bill. 

The Takeaway for Public Employees 

If you work for a government entity, a school district, a public university, a city or county agency, and you’ve faced discipline, suspension, or termination for something you said outside of work, on your own time, on a matter of public concern, then you may have rights that a private-sector employee in the same position would not. These cases are fact-intensive and the balancing test cuts both ways, but the recent run of settlements is a reminder that public employers don’t get a blank check to punish employees for unpopular opinions. 

This post is intended to provide general information about First Amendment principles as they apply to public employment and is not legal advice. If you believe you’ve been disciplined or terminated because of your protected speech, contact our office to discuss your specific situation.