LaChance v. Erickson

Background

Several federal employees were investigated for workplace misconduct and made false statements to agency investigators. The agencies added falsification charges and used those statements when deciding discipline. The Merit Systems Protection Board overturned the falsification findings and said agencies could not use the lies to impeach credibility or to set punishments. The Office of Personnel Management appealed, and the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board before the Supreme Court took the cases.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the Due Process Clause or the Civil Service Reform Act prevents agencies from punishing employees for knowingly false statements in investigations. The Court relied on earlier rulings saying people may not answer government questions with falsehoods and that penalties for false testimony are constitutionally acceptable. The presence or absence of an oath did not change that rule. The opinion also noted an employee can still remain silent to avoid criminal exposure, but there is no constitutional right to lie. The Court concluded that the statutory employee-protection procedures do not create a right to make false statements.

Real world impact

As a result, federal agencies may charge and discipline employees for knowingly making false statements in internal investigations, and they may consider those statements when setting penalties. Employees who fear criminal prosecution may still invoke the right to remain silent, but they cannot rely on a rule preventing agencies from using false denials in disciplinary decisions. The Supreme Court reversed the lower courts’ rulings and allowed agencies broader authority to address falsification.