The Volokh Conspiracy

Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent

About The Volokh Conspiracy Editorial Independence Who we are Books Volokh Daily Email Archives Search DMCA RSS

Free Speech

$485K Settlement in Government Employee Speech Case Stemming from Comments About Charlie Kirk's Death

Eugene Volokh | 5.21.2026 3:21 PM

The case, Brown v. Young, just settled; the government employer (the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) agreed to pay plaintiff $275K ($40K in back wages $235K in compensatory damages) $210K in attorneys' fees and costs. The Commission also agreed to give plaintiff a neutral reference in any future employment inquiries, and (to quote the ACLU press release), "to permit her to interact with FWC staff and resources on the same basis as any other external partner or volunteer, preserving her ability to continue her conservation work through partner organizations."

In exchange plaintiff resigned, dropped the case, and released her claims, including those related to sanctions that were awarded last week; here's an excerpt from the sanctions (read the whole sanctions decision for more):

This Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to attorneys' fees based on Ms. Tucker's and defense counsel's1 objectively unreasonable multiplication of proceedings in continuing to defend the Tucker declaration once it became clear that Ms. Tucker lacked personal knowledge to make the false statements identified above. Fees shall be split between Ms. Tucker and defense counsel and will be assessed at the conclusion of this case. To be clear, there must be a sanction for Ms. Tucker and her prior counsel's continued efforts to ignore the obvious—that Ms. Tucker lacked the personal knowledge necessary to make certain statements in her declaration and that such statements were, in fact, false—and defend the indefensible once that lack of personal knowledge and falsity became clear following Ms. Tucker's deposition.

Here are the details on the First Amendment issue in the case, from my Nov. 2015 post on the court's decision to deny a preliminary injunction to plaintiff:

[* * *]

Brown, who worked at the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reposted this item from an Instagram account that "posts satirical social commentary from the perspective of a whale":

This was apparently a reference to Kirk's comments that part of the price of the Second Amendment is that there would be "some gun deaths":

[At an event] held days after three children and three adults were killed in a school shooting in Nashville … Kirk [was] asked by an audience member how to make the point that protecting the Second Amendment is important. Kirk responded that the amendment "is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government." But "having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty," he said.

"You will never........

© Reason.com