Expressing Strong Opinions on Lindsay Clancy at Work Might Be Legal Grounds for Termination, Says Employment Lawyer

Expressing intense perspectives about the Massachusetts mother accused of taking her three children’s lives could get you fired without any legal repercussions, according to a noted employment law expert monitoring the case.

Lindsay Clancy, 36, faces charges for allegedly strangling her children—Cora, 5; Dawson, 3; and Callan, 8 months—and attempting suicide by leaping from a second-floor window. This incident reportedly occurred after she sent her husband out for takeout and a pharmacy errand, as stated by the Plymouth County District Attorney’s Office.

The case has sparked widespread attention across the country, drawing supporters to the courthouse and sparking heated debates online about culpability, especially after her defense claimed she was not guilty due to insanity or mental impairment.

“If you’re fired for engaging in fiery conversations supporting Lindsay Clancy, that action isn’t inherently illegal,” explained Nicole Brenecki, a New York-based lawyer with expertise in employment law.

Still, Brenecki warned, a fired employee could still raise legal concerns if their Clancy-related statements were used as a pretext to get rid of them for other reasons.

“If a case like this came to the court system, it would not be viewed in the context of the free speech alone,” she said. “It would also be viewed in the contexts of employment laws.”

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.