Last week, a South Carolina teacher’s aide filed what appears to the be the first-in-the-state lawsuit about her termination for her exercise of free speech, specifically about a social media post regarding Charlie Kirk. [Read more: Lauren Vaughn Lawsuit] The employee, Lauren Vaughn, had worked as a teacher’s assistant for six years prior to her termination without any performance concerns raised by the School District. On September 10, 2025, Vaughn posted on her private Facebook page (visible only to her friends) a quote from Charlie Kirk that said, “‘I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second amendment to protect our other God-given Rights. That is a prudent deal. It is rational.’ – Charlie Kirk. Thoughts and prayers.” Vaughn further commented that “[T]he WHOLE point here is that any time someone is killed fits [sic] a tragedy. Even someone I may not like. Even someone I disagree with. But instead of accepting it, why don’t we do something about it?” Vaughn also stated that “I disagree with [Kirk] and think today should not have happened. I’m sorry it did.”
The Spartanburg School District learned of the post and placed Vaughn on leave two days later. The District terminated Vaughn on September 15 for violated of school policies, including a social media policy that requires employees to “be respectful and professional in all communications (by word, image, or other means),” and to “always represent the District in the best light.” According to the District, some parents and staff complained, but we have yet to see what evidence the District has that would support the idea that Vaughn’s post caused any actual disruption to school operations.
The District has not yet filed an answer the Complaint, but once that happens, we’ll have a better idea of the defenses and facts that the District might raise to support the termination.
Does the District’s Termination of Lauren Vaughn Violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Protections?
I wrote recently about the legality of firing employees based on their social media posts about the Charlie Kirk assassination where I outlined the First Amendment protections that public employees, like Lauren Vaughn, would have that private employees do not. [Read more: Can a SC Employee Be Fired for Making Negative Comments about the Charlie Kirk Assassination?]
As I noted in that article, public employees have stronger free speech protections because their employer is a governmental entity. A school district, as an arm of the government, is bound by the restrictions of the First Amendment to the Constitution, and speech by public employees falls under that protection. However, even for a public employee, not all speech is protected. The employee’s speech must meet several requirements.
First, the employee must be speaking as a private citizen, not as a public official. In this case, Vaughn’s statements were made on her personal Facebook page, not through District social media or email, and she’s not speaking about anything related to her role as a teacher’s aide, so she would appear to meet the first requirement.
Second, the employee must be speaking about a matter of public concern. If Vaughn were simply complaining about personal drama in the workplace or about a hobby or a family matter, then her speech is not protected. Here, however, Vaughn posted on September 10, the same day as Kirk’s assassination, and her comments as quoted in the Complaint directly relate to the assassination. But her statements go further and delve into gun control, gun violence in general, and advocacy for a change in gun policy. It’s pretty clear that her social media posts meet the “public concern” requirement.
Finally, the employee has to show that employee’s interest in speaking out about a matter of public concern OUTWEIGHS the governmental employer’s interest in maintaining an efficient workplace. This is a balancing test that the court will have to analyze later in the lawsuit. For example, what disruption to the workplace was caused by the social media posts? How inflammatory and offensive were the posts? What impact did the comments have on District employees’ ability to do their jobs? This final element is where the First Amendment claim will rise or fall. All we have right now are the allegations in the Complaint, so we’ll have to see what evidence the District has as to the disruption caused by Vaughn’s personal comments on her private Facebook page.
Does Vaughn’s Termination Violate South Carolina’s Political Rights Statute?
Vaughn also brought a claim for wrongful termination in violation of South Carolina’s Political Rights Statute, S.C. Code Section 16-17-560. This law dates back to 1868, during the period of Reconstruction after the American Civil War. The statute protects employees from termination for exercising their political rights, including First Amendment free speech rights.
It’s actually a criminal statute, meaning that a company and its officers can be criminally prosecuted for violation of the law. The S.C. Supreme Court has also ruled that employees have what’s called a private cause of action based on the statute, meaning that South Carolina has a strong public policy in support of an employee’s exercise of political rights. Terminating an employee for exercise of those rights, therefore, would be a wrongful termination in violation of that public policy. Thus, the employee can bring a legal claim in federal court.
Takeaways for South Carolina Employees
This lawsuit is just the first of many that will be filed by employees all over the country. Each lawsuit will rise or fall on its own merits, meaning that the specific nature and content of the employee’s speech will matter a great deal. As an employee rights attorney in South Carolina, that’s the first question I ask in reviewing free speech and political rights cases. Ultimately, these cases will tried in front of a jury of our peers. In my opinion, statements that celebrate political violence or the death of Charlie Kirk–while they may still be legally protected–are a much harder case to make to a jury.
We’ll continue to watch this lawsuit and the others that follow. We’re likely months or even years away from getting any formal rulings from the trial court or the court of appeals on the merits of these cases, so it’s hard to offer any concrete predictions just yet. But for employees in South Carolina, it’s important to remember that not everything you say is protected. And even if it is, you may still be terminated and left with the prospect of a long and draining lawsuit to enforce those rights. That may not be fair, but it is the reality.
Nonetheless, we have the First Amendment for a reason: to encourage and protect speech that not everyone agrees with. When applied fairly, the Constitution protects speech of all political parties and beliefs, regardless of a liberal or conservative position. When companies and governmental entities in South Carolina cannot comply with the law, well, that’s what these types of lawsuits are designed to protect.
If you’ve been terminated for violation of your protected free speech or because of your exercise of political beliefs, please reach out to our office for a review of your case. You can reach our office at (864) 233-4351 or via our Contact Us page.
