Lerner v. Casey

Background

A New York City subway conductor was investigated under the State's Security Risk Law after being asked whether he belonged to the Communist Party. He refused to answer and invoked the Fifth Amendment. The Transit Authority suspended him, then dismissed him for creating doubts about his trustworthiness. He did not pursue his statutory administrative appeal and instead sued in state court; state courts upheld the dismissal and the case reached this Court.

Reasoning

The central question was whether the dismissal violated the Federal Constitution because the employer treated the employee's silence as evidence of unreliability. The Court accepted the state courts' view that the dismissal rested on the conductor's refusal to answer relevant questions, not on an inference of guilt from his claimed rights. It held that the refusal itself could justify reasonable doubt about his fitness for employment. The Court also ruled that the federal Fifth Amendment privilege was not available to block the state investigation through the Fourteenth Amendment in this context. The Court noted that the employee failed to use the available administrative remedy before challenging the dismissal in court.

Real world impact

This decision allows states and local employers designated as security agencies to treat an employee's refusal to answer job-related security questions as a basis for dismissal. Public employees in sensitive positions should expect employers to rely on lack of candor as evidence of unreliability, and to use administrative appeal processes to challenge dismissals.

Dissents or concurrances

The opinion notes one concurrence and several dissents by other Justices. Those opinions disagreed with the majority's conclusion that the dismissal was constitutionally permissible.