Can You Be Fired for Discussing Lindsay Clancy at Work? Employment Lawyer Explains the Legal Risks

Speaking passionately at work about the Massachusetts mother accused of killing her three children could cost an employee their job — and, in many cases, that firing may be lawful, according to an employment law attorney tracking the high-profile case.

Lindsay Clancy, 36, faces accusations that she strangled her three young children — 5-year-old Cora, 3-year-old Dawson and 8-month-old Callan — before attempting to take her own life by jumping from a second-floor window, after allegedly sending her husband out to pick up takeout food and an item from a pharmacy, the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office has said.

The tragic case has become a national flashpoint, drawing supporters of Clancy to the courthouse and fueling intense online debate over blame, mental health and criminal responsibility after her defense team argued she should be found not guilty by reason of insanity or mental defect.

Nicole Brenecki, a New York-based lawyer who focuses on employment law, said an employer generally would not be breaking the law simply by disciplining or terminating someone for sparking heated workplace conversations in support of Clancy.

But Brenecki cautioned that such a firing would not automatically be beyond challenge. If an employee claimed their remarks about the Lindsay Clancy case were merely used as a cover for discrimination, retaliation or another unlawful motive, the dispute could raise broader employment law questions.

“If something like this ended up before a court, it would not be analyzed only as a free speech issue,” Brenecki said. “It would also be examined through the lens of workplace and employment protections.”

As a “general rule,” however, she said employers would be allowed to prohibit such discussions about the case.

Other considerations would involve whether the speech took place during working hours, disrupted business operations or whether there was discrimination against protected groups involved in the firing.

“Every single case in our court system is very highly and intensely fact-based,” she said. “So we cannot give…any specific explanation as to whether something would be illegal or not. We have to look at the facts.”

Still, Brenecki advised against arguing over strong opinions at the water cooler.

“If you truly want to voice them in a workplace, then be prepared to have to find greener pastures,” she said.

There could be other consequences as well. Earlier this month, an attorney named Alex Thomason said in a TikTok video of his own that he has already spoken with men involved in custody disputes with women who have been posting the “solidarity hold a heart thing” for Clancy.

In one instance, he said, he is looking to have a woman’s visitation rights stripped away.

“I want to be able to have a forensic psychiatrist interview this woman just to see how wack-a-doodle she is, and we’re gonna use her TikTok posts,” he said.

Defense attorney Kevin Reddington has argued that Clancy was under the effects of postpartum psychosis, while prosecutors allege she acted deliberately and understood what she was doing was wrong.

Dozens of supporters have rallied outside the courthouse, carrying signs and wearing shirts with phrases like, “Stand in Peace for Lindsay.”

Jurors began deliberating after both sides delivered their closing arguments Thursday.

They will decide whether Clancy is guilty of first-degree murder, second-degree murder or manslaughter in the deaths of her three children — or not criminally responsible by reason of the insanity defense.

If convicted of any of the three counts of first-degree murder she faces, Clancy would see a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole.