• The Washington Post must rehire fired columnist Karen Attiah, an independent arbitrator said.
• Attiah was dismissed after comments she made in the wake of conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s killing.
• Firing Attiah was an “absolutely disproportional” punishment, the ruling said.

Karen Attiah is returning to The Washington Post in dramatic fashion.

The columnist was dismissed last fall for making controversial social media posts following conservative activist Charlie Kirk’s death. Now, an independent arbitrator has ruled that Jeff Bezos’ newspaper wrongly fired her.

“The Washington Post did not have good and sufficient cause to terminate the employment of the Grievant, Karen Attiah,” arbitrator Sarah Miller Espinosa said in the ruling, which was announced on Monday.

Attiah must be reinstated by The Washington Post and given full backpay and compensation for lost benefits, the ruling said.

“This decision confirms what we’ve said from the start: I was doing my job as an opinion journalist, and doing that job is not misconduct,” Attiah said in a statement, adding that she’s “relieved to finally have that record set straight.”

A Washington Post spokesperson said that the company respects the arbitration process and had no further comment.

The Washington Post had told Attiah that its reason for firing her was two of her posts on the social media site Bluesky, according to the termination letter it sent her, which was verified by Business Insider.

Here are the posts:

• “Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is….not the same as violence.”
• “Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.”

The Washington Post’s letter to Attiah said that “your postings on Bluesky (which clearly identifies you as a Post Columnist) about white men in response to the killing of Charlie Kirk do not comply with our policy,” which forbids posts that disparage individuals based on protected characteristics, including race and gender.

In the ruling, the arbitrator said that “it is not reasonable to conclude” that Attiah’s posts “were referring to or disparaging all white men or disparaging a particular white man on the basis of race or gender.”

“Recognizing the race and gender of individuals does not, in and of itself, constitute disparagement on the basis of race or gender,” the ruling said.

The ruling also said it was “undisputed” that Attiah, who’d been at the Post for 11 years, hadn’t been previously disciplined by the company and had not received progressive discipline prior to her termination. That means the company had to prove that Attiah committed “gross misconduct.”

“The penalty of termination imposed on the Grievant was absolutely disproportional,” the ruling said.