Employers across the United States are often challenged to monitor workplace speech on sensitive current events while mitigating the risks of discrimination and harassment claims. Following the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks in Israel and the aftermath in Gaza, such challenges and risks have been ever-present.
The Trump administration’s attempts to address workplace anti-Semitism have not eliminated such concerns, and in some cases, they have increased the prevalence of sensitive workplace speech. The ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza has similarly led to challenging workplace discussions, risking legal claims.
Employers should take care to sensitively address workplace political speech while mitigating potential risks. Let’s look at some summarizations of Trump administration actions addressing anti-Semitism, and survey lawsuits filed in the last two years by Jewish and Muslim plaintiffs.
Executive orders and EEOC guidance
After Oct. 7, 2023, the Trump administration expressed intent to combat anti-Semitism, including through an executive order forming a Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism. In March 2025, the task force announced its investigation into the University of California system for potential Title VII violations stemming from “allowing an anti-Semitic, hostile work environment to exist on its campuses.” Notably, as the task force’s name suggests, the Trump administration has been largely silent on discrimination against Muslims.
In 2024, before the second Trump inauguration, an EEOC fact sheet emphasized that Title VII prohibits religious discrimination impacting anti-Semitism and, more broadly, anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern and anti-Muslim discrimination. The fact sheet provides specific hypotheticals for employers to consider, including how conduct occurring outside of work—including on social media—can contribute to a hostile work environment.
The EEOC posed one example of an employee who posted religious slurs about Muslim or Jewish co-workers on social media. The commission said that such a social media post can affect the workplace if the Muslim/Jewish co-worker learns about the post directly, or if other co-workers see and discuss the social media post at work. Such off-work activity can trigger discrimination or harassment claims if its impact is felt in the office.
Though the EEOC’s 2024 guidance remains in effect, its focus on anti-Muslim discrimination appears not to match the Trump administration’s more recent actions. The administration’s rhetoric has focused solely on anti-Semitism, including threats to target universities accused of harboring work environments hostile to Jewish employees.
Lawsuit trends and key takeaways
Analysis of recent religious discrimination litigation reveals several key takeaways for employers navigating workplace political speech. One common throughline is a lesson well-known to employers: Sensitive political speech frequently leads to potential discrimination and harassment claims. While some of these post-Oct. 7 lawsuits remain active and/or unresolved, they provide useful insight for how employers may anticipate and mitigate potential legal claims.
Two key trends are apparent from recent religious discrimination litigation. First, social media remains a flashpoint for sensitive political speech and potential litigation. Second, an employer’s action—or inaction—in response to alleged unlawful treatment of a particular religious group increases potential threats of discrimination or harassment litigation.
Social media and religious discrimination
Employees frequently post their personal political views on social media, which does not necessarily create litigation risk. Yet, in the post-COVID era, employees have become more accustomed to interacting with their colleagues online, including on social media. In such cases, employers that discipline employees for their social media posts may risk discrimination and retaliation claims. Several states, including California, prohibit employers from taking action against employees for their political speech or activity.
Recent federal and state lawsuits have underscored potential risks posed by employees’ political speech on social media. In one case pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, a Jewish sports agent posted on his personal Instagram account, using expletives and expressing “shock” over BLM Chicago’s “apparently pro-Hamas political stance,” after the group showed support for Palestine following Oct. 7.
That day, the employee’s manager informed him that other employees had complained about his post, including some who viewed it as racist. Although the employee removed his post, the company terminated his employment. He sued the employer for California Labor Code and unfair business practices violations, breach of contract and wrongful termination.
In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, a city employee posted support for a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, as well as expressing sympathy for non-Hamas Palestinians. The city terminated the employee shortly thereafter. The employee alleged First Amendment retaliation. The city’s Motion for Summary Judgment is pending.
Several other lawsuits were filed after Oct. 7 with similar fact patterns. To mitigate the risk, employers should review their social media policies. Carefully consider any action based on employees’ political speech around sensitive issues on social media. Any adverse employment action following such activity will likely be highly scrutinized.
Management action/inaction
Though private entities commonly express their political views, unbalanced advocacy may prompt allegations of discrimination and disparate impact of company-wide policies.
For example, in Garrett v. City University of New York, the university’s chair and director of Jewish Studies alleges that the university failed to take action against anti-Semitic protests on campus. These protests allegedly disrupted faculty senate meetings, blocked entrances to buildings, including the plaintiff’s office, and included anti-Semitic graffiti, posters and flyers—all in violation of university policy. The plaintiff alleged that this atmosphere created an unsafe work environment, exacerbated by the administration’s inaction. The plaintiff asserted causes for hostile work environment, breach of contract, negligence and negligent infliction of emotional harm.
This case highlights the plaintiff’s assumption that the university holds pro-Palestine views because of its alleged inaction on her complaints. Employers should carefully consider political statements that may make employees feel uncomfortable and even create liability for discrimination claims.
Employers have long struggled to strike a balance between addressing political events and mitigating litigation risks. Such concerns will persist, and perhaps grow, through the second Trump administration and as tensions continue to flare in Israel and Gaza. Employers are encouraged to keep apprised of legal developments addressing workplace political speech and to seek legal advice when taking disciplinary action based on employee political speech.