Uniformed Sanitation Men Association v. Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York

United States Supreme Court

392 U.S. 280

Uniformed Sanitation Men Assn., Inc.  v.  Commissioner of Sanitation of the City of New York et al.

Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

No. 823.  Argued: May 1, 1968. --- Decided: June 10, 1968.

In connection with an investigation of improper activities by New York City sanitation employees the individual petitioners, fifteen sanitation employees, were summoned before the Commissioner of Investigation and advised that, if they refused to testify with respect to their official conduct on the ground of self-incrimination, their employment would terminate, in accordance with § 1123 of the City Charter. Twelve asserted the privilege against self-incrimination and refused to testify, after being told that their answers could be used against them in subsequent proceedings. They were dismissed on the basis of that refusal. Three employees who answered the questions and denied the charges made against them were suspended, and then called before a grand jury and asked to sign waivers of immunity. Upon their refusal to do so they were dismissed on the ground that they violated § 1123 by refusing to sign the waivers. The Federal District Court dismissed petitioners' action for a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief based on the alleged wrongful discharge in violation of their constitutional rights, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: Petitioners as public employees are entitled, like all other persons, to the benefit of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination and they may not be faced with proceedings which, as here, presented them with a choice between surrendering their constitutional rights or their jobs. Gardner v. Broderick, ante, p. 273. Public employees are subject to dismissal if they refuse to account for the performance of their public trust after proper proceeding which do not involve an attempt to coerce them to relinquish their constitutional rights. Pp. 283-285.

383 F. 2d 362, reversed.

Leonard B. Boudin argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs was Victor Rabinowitz.

Norman Redlich argued the cause for respondents. With him on the brief were J. Lee Rankin and John J. Loflin.

Notes