Nurse suspended after calling out doctor who allegedly cheered Charlie Kirk killing!

A workplace dispute in New Jersey has escalated into a lawsuit, following allegations that a nurse was suspended after calling out a doctor who openly celebrated the death of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The case highlights the collision of politics, workplace ethics, and free speech in an already divided America.

The controversy began on September 10, just hours after news broke that Charlie Kirk, 31, founder of Turning Point USA, had been fatally shot during his “American Comeback Tour” event at Utah Valley University. According to eyewitnesses, the gunman struck Kirk in the neck while he addressed students outdoors. Though no one else was harmed, the incident sent shockwaves across the political spectrum. Tributes poured in from supporters, while critics responded with less sympathy. But few expected the fallout to spill so directly into hospitals, classrooms, firehouses, and newsrooms.

One of the loudest disputes emerged at Englewood Health in New Jersey. Lexi Kuenzle, a 33-year-old nurse with nearly two years at the hospital and a decade of nursing experience overall, claims she was punished for speaking out against a surgeon’s shocking remarks. According to Kuenzle, bariatric surgeon Dr. Matthew Jung reacted to Kirk’s death with glee—in front of her, eight other nurses, and even a patient on a stretcher.

“Oh my God! That’s terrible! I love him!” Kuenzle recalls saying after learning of the shooting. She alleges that Dr. Jung immediately replied: “I hate Charlie Kirk. He had it coming. He deserved it.”

Stunned, Kuenzle says she couldn’t stay quiet. “You’re a doctor,” she remembers challenging him. “How could you say someone deserved to die?”

In her lawsuit, she describes the moment as “mind-blowing,” leaving her both “angry and upset.” She further claims that Jung, perhaps realizing the gravity of his words, tried to smooth things over by offering to buy lunch for the nurses present.

Kuenzle reported the incident to hospital management and later posted about it on social media. The very next day, she says, she was suspended without pay and told termination was likely. Her attorney, John Coyle, argues that she is facing retaliation not only for raising ethical concerns but also for her Christian faith.

In legal filings, Coyle wrote that Kuenzle “had the audacity to question how Dr. Jung can comply with the Hippocratic Oath and the American Medical Association’s Code of Ethics while celebrating the murder of a non-violent Christian speaker.” The complaint accuses Englewood Health of violating New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination, creating a hostile work environment, and breaching the Conscientious Employee Protection Act. Kuenzle is seeking a jury trial and unspecified damages.

Englewood Health has attempted to tamp down speculation, releasing a statement to Fox News that both Kuenzle and Dr. Jung were suspended pending investigation. “Contrary to certain media reports, the nurse was not fired,” the hospital clarified. “Any reported suggestions that the nurse should seek other employment was not an official or accurate statement from Englewood Health.”

Meanwhile, Dr. Jung’s biography was removed from the hospital’s website as of Sunday, raising further questions about his standing.

Kuenzle is well known for her outspoken conservative views. Her Instagram profile often features pro-Trump posts, patriotic imagery, and photos alongside a cardboard cutout of the former president. Her case quickly gained traction online after GOP activist Scott Presler defended her publicly, dubbing her one of “Charlie’s Angels.” Presler questioned whether Dr. Jung could fairly treat patients whose political views differ from his, asking: “Would he treat them differently? Would he allow his emotions to cloud his judgment, as he did by saying such a statement in front of a patient?”

The story has ignited fierce debate online. Supporters see Kuenzle’s actions as courageous—an example of holding a colleague accountable for crossing both professional and moral lines. Critics argue that internal disputes should be addressed quietly, without escalating to lawsuits and media attention. Others worry that personal politics, on either side, are increasingly spilling into professional environments where neutrality and ethics should prevail.

At the heart of the case is a critical question: should speaking out against a colleague’s disturbing comments be punished—or protected? Kuenzle insists she was only standing up for what is right. Her attorney frames it as a matter of conscience and professional ethics. The hospital, caught between employee complaints and the political firestorm outside its walls, insists it is investigating fairly.

For now, both the shooting of Charlie Kirk and the lawsuit it indirectly sparked remain under investigation. One tragedy on a college campus has grown into a national debate about workplace integrity, freedom of speech, and the role of personal politics in professional settings.

As Kuenzle awaits her day in court, the case has already made waves far beyond Englewood, becoming another flashpoint in America’s culture wars—where the line between free expression and professional responsibility grows blurrier by the day.