Document: 392 U.S. 280 88 S.Ct. 1917 20 L.Ed.2d 1089 UNIFORMED SANITATION MEN ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., Petitioners,v.COMMISSIONER OF the CITY NEW YORK al. No. 823. Argued May 1, 1968. Decided June 10, Leonard B. Boudin, New York City, for petitioners. Norman Redlich, respondents. Mr. Justice FORTAS delivered opinion of Court. 1 The individual petitioners are 15 employees Department Sanitation City. Claiming they were wrongfully dismissed from employment in violation their rights under United States Constitution, commenced this action declaratory judgment and injunctive relief District Court Southern York. That court Appeals Second Circuit affirmed. 383 F.2d 364 (1967). We granted certiorari 390 919, 851, 19 979 (1968). 2 Sometime 1966, Commissioner Investigation City1 began an investigation charges that not charging private cartmen proper fees use certain city facilities diverting to themselves proceeds did charge. obtained order Supreme County authorizing him tap a telephone leased by transaction official business at question.2 3 In November 1966 each was summoned before Commissioner. Each advised that, accordance with § 1123 City Charter, if he refused testify respect his conduct or any other employee on grounds self-incrimination, eligibility would terminate.3 4 Twelve petitioners, asserting constitutional privilege against testify. After disciplinary hearing held pursuant 75 Civil Service Law, McKinney's Consol.Laws, c. 7, explicit ground provided Charter had 5 Three answered questions put them, denying made. They thereafter suspended basis 'information received concerning irregularities arising out (their) Sanitation.' Subsequently, grand jury asked sign waivers immunity. refused. Administrative hearings sole violated refusing consider only dismissal, rather than suspension, these 6 Relying upon decision Gardner v. Broderick, N.Y.2d 227, 282 N.Y.S.2d 487, 229 N.E.2d 184 (1967) (reversed day, 273, 1913, 1082), dismissal offend Federal Constitution. For reasons which we elaborate our reversing court's supra, hold erred. 7 Petitioners discharged merely refusal account as city. invoking waive right self-incrimination. expose criminal prosecution based testimony give compulsion, despite privilege. immunity jury. told answers them could be used subsequent proceedings,4 answer basis. Garrity State Jersey, 385 493, 87 616, 17 562 (1967), compelled threat witness, been decided when 12 hazardous choice. event, need decide whether have effectively waived protection testified following warning them. entitled remain silent because it clear seeking, accounting abuse public trust, but own lips which, prohibition, prosecute criminally.5 8 As stated demanded specifically, directly, narrowly relating performance duties pain without requiring relinquishment benefits privilege, do so, case entirely different. such case, employee's result stake. But here precise plain impact proceedings well present choice between surrendering jobs. entitled, like all persons, benefit including supra; supra. Cf. Murphy Waterfront Commission, 378 52, 79, 84 1594, 1607, 1609, 678 (1964). At same time, being employees, subject refuse after proceedings, involve attempt coerce relinquish rights. Accordingly, is reversed.6 9 Reversed. 10 BLACK concurs result. Section 803, subd. 2, provides '(i)s authorized empowered make study may best interests city, limited investigations affairs, functions, accounts, methods, personnel efficiency agency.' This 813—a Code Criminal Procedure See Berger York, 388 41, 1873, 18 1040 provides: 'If councilman officer shall, lawful notice process, wilfully fail appear judge, legislative committee, officer, board body inquiry, having appeared shall question regarding property, government affairs county included within its territorial limits, nomination, election, appointment county, tend incriminate him, matter relation term tenure office terminate vacant, eligible election said: 'Mr. (name witness), conducted Chapter 34, Charter. you about relates particularly I wish advise privileges guaranteed laws Constitutions States, witness yourself. further anything say can law. You attorney hearing, wish, understand represented counsel person attorney), correct?' (Emphasis added.) noted U.S., 278—279, S.Ct., 1916, possible ineffectiveness waiver does change fact attempted force penalty loss employment, view disposition reach issues raised wiretap.

Category: 0