Ex-Ball State employee settles with university president over First Amendment case

A former Ball State University employee who was fired for her comments following political activist Charlie Kirk’s death has settled a lawsuit against the university’s president, but the details have not yet been finalized.

Tuesday’s settlement signals a near-conclusion of Suzanne Swierc’s six-month entanglement with Ball State University President Geoffrey Mearns, who fired Swierc for a Facebook post she made after Kirk’s fatal shooting, which he previously claimed caused an “unprecedented level of disruption” for the university.

Greg Fallon, Ball State’s associate vice president of university communications and digital strategy, called the Tuesday settlement conference “successful,” saying the parties “reached agreement on the material terms to resolve the matter.”

The case is not fully resolved, as the parties must memorialize and sign the agreement and file a stipulation of dismissal, which the court ordered to be due in May.

Neither the court nor the parties have released details of the agreement.

Aside from reaching an agreement, “There is nothing further we can share at this time,” said Stevie Pactor, a senior staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which is representing Swierc, in a written statement Tuesday.

Washington, D.C.-based attorneys Eric Dreiband and Rebecca Beale, who represented Mearns, did not respond to The Lawyer’s request for comment or details.

The ACLU sued Mearns on Swierc’s behalf for allegedly violating her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Mearns denied the allegations and argued that Swierc’s post did not fall under constitutionally-protected speech.

Shortly after Kirk’s assassination on Sept. 10, Swierc joined the cascade of individuals who took to social media to offer their thoughts on the matter. Some emotionally condemned the shooting at Utah Valley University, while others appeared ecstatic over the conservative commentator’s death.

Swierc previously told The Lawyer that she felt compelled to take a more middle-ground approach.

“I can disagree with Charlie Kirk and also believe that he shouldn’t have died, and that his death was tragic,” she said.

In her 140-word supposedly private Facebook post, Swierc wrote that “Charlie Kirk’s death is a reflection of the violence, fear, and hatred he sowed. It does not excuse his death, AND it’s a sad truth.”

Within a couple of days, Libs of TikTok, a right-leaning social media account known for reposting left-leaning content to garner reactions, spread her post, along with a screenshot of her employee information, across its platform. National figures such as Elon Musk and Rudy Giuliani, and state figures such as Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita, publicly condemned her comments.

Swierc faced derogatory language and even threats from anonymous callers and messengers.

The university also fielded a “deluge” of complaints, comments and inquiries from the media and public, including university students, parents, employees and prospective students and their families.

The ACLU took her on as a client and filed a complaint 10 days after he termination, arguing that her firing resulted directly and exclusively from the exercise of her expressive free speech rights, which she says she made “as a private citizen” and “not pursuant to any professional duties or responsibilities that she had as an employee of the university.”

Mearns pushed back against Swierc’s argument, writing in an Oct. 30, 2025, response that Mearns’ interest in preventing disruption to the university’s operations and educational mission “substantially outweighed” Swierc’s interest in speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern.

The post “shaped public perception of [Swierc], [Swierc’s] role as a student-facing employee who occupied a position of trust at the University, public perception of the University itself, and [Swierc’s] social media post unduly disrupted the University’s operations,” the response stated.

Mearns also argued to bar Swierc’s request for damages, saying he took “no action with malice, evil motive or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to the [Swierc’s] First Amendment and other federally-protected rights,” according to the response.