Nelson v. County of Los Angeles

Background

A temporary county worker in Los Angeles was subpoenaed to appear before a House committee investigating subversive activity. He appeared but declined to answer questions about group membership and whether he belonged to the Communist Party, citing his First and Fifth Amendment rights. California law (§1028.1) and a county order required public employees to answer such questions, and the county discharged him for insubordination. As a temporary employee he was not entitled to a civil service hearing.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the State could lawfully dismiss an employee for failing to answer questions covered by the statute. The majority said yes: the law punishes failure to answer, not the mere assertion of a constitutional privilege, and the State has a legitimate interest in obtaining information about subversive activity. The Court relied on earlier decisions that allowed discharge where an employee’s failure to answer prevents an employer from obtaining needed information about security or fitness. The majority therefore affirmed the dismissal of the temporary employee.

Real world impact

The decision means that, under the facts here, temporary public employees who refuse to answer mandated questions for investigating bodies can be dismissed without a hearing. It leaves intact the distinction between permanent employees (who may get more process) and temporary ones under local rules. The Court did not resolve every constitutional argument raised and did not decide the case of the permanent employee, which was affirmed only by an equally divided Court.

Dissents or concurrances

Two Justices dissented, arguing the ruling lets a State penalize someone for invoking the federal privilege against self-incrimination and conflicts with earlier cases that protected employees from automatic discharge for claiming that privilege.