A New Jersey nurse has filed a lawsuit alleging she was suspended without pay after reporting a hospital surgeon for celebrating the killing of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, an incident her complaint says occurred “in front of patients and staff” and which the hospital says is being investigated with both employees placed on leave. The suit, lodged in Bergen County Superior Court, names Englewood Health and bariatric surgeon Dr Matthew Jung as defendants and seeks a jury trial and damages under state discrimination and whistleblower laws. In a statement to media, Englewood Health said “both the doctor and nurse were placed on suspension to allow time for a thorough and fair investigation,” and added that contrary to some reports “the nurse was not fired.”
The plaintiff, identified as 33-year-old registered nurse Lexi Kuenzle, alleges the suspension followed her objection to comments she says Dr Jung made at a nurse’s station shortly after news broke that Kirk had died from a gunshot wound sustained during a daytime question-and-answer event at Utah Valley University on 10 September. Kuenzle says she was working a shift at Englewood Health when she reacted to the bulletin by saying, “Oh, my God! That’s terrible! I love him!” and that Dr Jung responded, “I hate Charlie Kirk. He had it coming. He deserved it.” She contends she challenged the remarks, reported the exchange to management and later described it on her personal social-media account, after which she was told the next day she was suspended without pay pending investigation.
In the complaint, Kuenzle’s attorney, John Coyle, argues the surgeon’s alleged remarks are at odds with professional ethics and that punishing the employee who objected created a hostile work environment. “She had the audacity to question how Dr. Jung can comply with the Hippocratic Oath’s and the American Medical Association’s Code of Medical Ethics while celebrating the murder of a non-violent Christian speaker who was on a college campus,” the filing states. The suit also claims Dr Jung attempted to smooth over the incident by offering to “buy lunch” for nursing staff he had offended.
Englewood Health, a regional hospital based in Englewood, New Jersey, confirmed it was “aware of the incident” and said placing both employees on leave followed “standard protocol” and was “in the interest of everyone’s safety including their own.” The hospital also said that “contrary to certain media reports” Kuenzle had not been terminated and that any suggestion she should search for other employment “was not an official or accurate statement from Englewood Health.” The facility did not elaborate on the status of the surgeon or whether any separate review of his conduct is underway.
Kuenzle has been a nurse for a decade and has worked at Englewood Health for nearly two years, according to accounts published by outlets that interviewed her or reviewed the lawsuit. She says the exchange occurred with multiple witnesses present, including nurses and a patient on a stretcher, and that she felt compelled to object because of the setting as well as the content of the remarks. In a quote attributed to interviews about the incident, she recalled asking, “You’re a doctor. How could you say someone deserved to die?” and described feeling “so angry and upset.”
The lawsuit alleges violations of New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and the state’s Conscientious Employee Protection Act, commonly referred to as the whistleblower law, asserting that hospital managers were aware of Kuenzle’s Christian faith and political views and that she was retaliated against for reporting conduct she believed endangered patient trust and workplace safety. The complaint seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages and requests a jury trial. It also asks the court to find that Englewood Health failed to protect staff and patients from “a doctor openly celebrating political violence,” according to summaries of the filing carried by national and international media.
Coverage of the case has identified the surgeon as Dr Matthew Jung and describes him as a bariatric specialist affiliated with Englewood Health. One outlet reported that, as of Sunday morning, the doctor was no longer listed on the hospital’s website, a detail that could not be independently confirmed from the complaint but which the media organisation said it observed during preparation of its story. Neither the hospital nor Dr Jung has issued a public statement addressing the specific allegations about the remarks attributed to him.
Kuenzle’s filing states that after she reported the incident and posted about it on Instagram, she was informed the next day she would be suspended without pay, and that she was later told she might be terminated. Separate summaries of the complaint say a union representative cautioned her to “start looking for another job,” though Englewood Health has disputed any claim that such a warning came from management. In its statement, the hospital emphasised that suspensions were imposed on both employees while the review proceeds.
The episode has drawn national attention as institutions and employers respond to public reaction surrounding Kirk’s killing. In a separate case not connected to Englewood Health, Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta said over the weekend it had fired an employee for “inappropriate comments” about Kirk on social media, stating the remarks violated the hospital’s policy. Local media in Atlanta also reported that Delta Air Lines had suspended several employees over online posts related to the same incident. Those actions highlight the rapid employment consequences some workers have faced for public commentary about the killing.
Accounts of the New Jersey case vary in emphasis but consistently repeat several core claims from Kuenzle’s filing: that the surgeon allegedly said Kirk “had it coming” and “deserved it,” that the exchange occurred within earshot of patients and staff, that Kuenzle reported the remarks and posted about them, and that she was then suspended without pay while the hospital reviewed the matter. The complaint further alleges the surgeon attempted an apology by offering to buy lunch for staff in the aftermath. Media that have summarised the lawsuit say Kuenzle is a conservative and a Christian and argue that knowledge of those beliefs by supervisors is relevant to her retaliation claim, while the hospital maintains its process is neutral and standard in such circumstances.
Kirk, 31, the chief executive and co-founder of Turning Point USA, died after a single shot was fired from an elevated position while he spoke under a canopy at Utah Valley University on 10 September. Authorities released images and a short video of a person of interest and later announced a suspect was in custody following tips from the public, according to a chronology in news reports. While the criminal case continues in Utah, civil and employment disputes have broken out elsewhere over public responses to the killing, of which the Englewood Health matter is one of the most prominent.
The circumstances of the exchange described in the New Jersey complaint—inside a clinical setting, in front of a patient, and involving a physician—have sparked questions about professional standards and hospital policies. Kuenzle’s suit couches her objection in the language of medical ethics and patient trust, arguing that celebrating violence toward a public figure is incompatible with the duty to treat patients impartially. Conservative activist Scott Presler, among others, publicly questioned whether a doctor who expressed such sentiments could treat patients fairly, a line of criticism that has circulated widely on social platforms since the case surfaced. Englewood Health has not addressed that argument directly, instead stressing that its review is designed to be “thorough and fair.”
The legal posture of the case now turns on whether Kuenzle can show protected activity, an adverse employment action and a causal link under the Conscientious Employee Protection Act, and whether any discipline or differential treatment can be tied to protected characteristics or beliefs under the Law Against Discrimination. While those legal standards will be tested in court, the hospital’s initial response focuses on process: simultaneous suspensions, assurances of neutrality and a refusal to comment on specifics while the inquiry is underway. The complaint does not indicate when a disciplinary decision might be made or whether Kuenzle remains on unpaid status as the investigation continues.
UNILAD, which reviewed the filing, reported that Kuenzle said the exchange unfolded in front of at least eight nurses and that she confronted the surgeon in the moment before filing a report with supervisors. The outlet quoted the complaint as stating that her attorney considers the alleged remarks irreconcilable with medical oaths and codes, and that an offer to “buy lunch” followed as an attempted apology. Times of India, citing the same core details, summarised the complaint’s narrative and recorded the claim that a manager told Kuenzle to “start looking for another job,” a point Englewood Health has rejected as an official position.
Fox News Digital, which published an image of Englewood Hospital and quoted from the lawsuit, also carried the hospital’s on-the-record statement and noted that as of Sunday the surgeon’s name did not appear on the hospital’s website. The article said Kuenzle’s counsel accuses the hospital of retaliation and discrimination tied to her religious beliefs and seeks relief that includes compensatory and punitive damages. The network reported that neither the nurse nor her counsel immediately responded to requests for comment and that Englewood Health did not add details beyond its prepared statement.
Beyond the particulars of this complaint, hospitals and clinical networks have faced a series of personnel decisions in the wake of the Utah shooting, weighing employee speech against policies governing professionalism and public communications. In Atlanta, Children’s Healthcare said it took action after being alerted to a staff member’s social-media post; in its statement, the hospital said “this type of rhetoric is not acceptable” and cited a social-media policy violation. Local coverage added that a separate employer in the region had taken action against workers over online comments about Kirk. Those cases are distinct from Englewood’s, which centres on alleged in-hospital conduct and a retaliation claim, but they have contributed to a wider debate about professional boundaries as the killing reverberates far from the crime scene.
Neither Englewood Health nor representatives for Dr Jung have addressed in public whether any disciplinary review of the surgeon’s conduct includes patient-care audits, professionalism training, or other remedial steps that sometimes accompany workplace investigations. The hospital’s statement avoided any discussion of potential outcomes or timelines. For Kuenzle, the legal route is now formalised; the complaint requests a jury and frames the case as one about retaliation for raising a concern tied to patient welfare and professional ethics, rather than about a political dispute among co-workers.
The complaint arrives amid continued public memorials for Kirk and an ongoing criminal case in Utah. While those processes unfold separately, they form the backdrop to employment disputes like the one at Englewood Health, in which the key factual questions will be narrow: what was said, where and to whom; how managers responded; and whether the actions taken by the hospital meet the requirements of state law and internal policy. Until a court filing or hospital decision provides more detail, the case remains at the allegation stage, with Englewood Health’s only official comment being that both employees were suspended while a “thorough and fair” review proceeds.
