An Arkansas state health worker fired for Facebook posts regarding the assassination of conservative political activist Charlie Kirk can move forward with some claims in her suit alleging that her termination constituted retaliation for protected speech, a federal judge said.
Judge Lee P. Rudofsky denied the Arkansas Department of Health’s motion to dismiss Joy Gray’s federal and state retaliation claims and those against her former supervisor and another employee for their roles in her firing, according to his order filed May 1 in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.
However, Rudofsky agreed to toss retaliation claims against three agency top officials named as co-defendants due to lack of evidence that they were personally involved in the termination, as well as her suit’s other allegations.
The ruling comes as courts determine the fate of litigation brought by private- and public-sector workers who say they were unlawfully fired or disciplined over online comments deemed critical of the Turning Point USA founder or implying approval of his Sept. 10 killing.
The state agency’s motion argued Gray didn’t state specific facts to show that her social media comments were on a “matter of public concern” or that each of the defendants engaged in retaliation.
Gray’s complaint didn’t include or detail her online posts on Kirk’s killing, but the health agency itself conceded they were speech involving “a matter of public concern,” Rudofsky said. The court can consider a defendant’s concession when it’s against the defendant’s interests, he said.
The judge also found that Gray showed evidence that co-defendants Cristy Sellers, her direct supervisor, and fellow employee Reggie Rogers took or advanced action that would chill speech. Sellers made the termination decision, and that Rogers was an active participant in it by raising concerns about the social media posts and demanding an apology, he said.
Rudofsky rejected the health agency’s bid to invoke the qualified immunity doctrine to escape allegations, pointing to the “matter of public concern” concession.
Gray’s procedural due process claim that she “had a property interest in continued employment” at the agency also failed because she’s not constitutionally entitled to advance notice to respond before her termination and didn’t respond to the agency’s arguments on this allegation in her briefs.
Gray has 30 days to amend her complaint to rectify deficiencies, the judge said, including her conspiracy claim lacking evidence to suggest a “meeting of the minds” by the defendants to retaliate against her.
The judge previously rejected Gray’s bid to order the agency to rehire her or conduct a “name clearing hearing” for her to explain her side and avoid alleged reputational damage while the case plays out. The judge’s November order cited Gray’s failure to show “irreparable harm” without a preliminary injunction.
Sutter & Gillham PLLC represents Gray. Arkansas Attorney General’s office represents the defendants.
The case is Gray v. Mallory, E.D. Ark., No. 4:25-cv-01057-LPR, motion to dismiss ruling 5/1/26.
To contact the reporter on this story:
To contact the editor responsible for this story: