When employees are accused of misconduct, their first instinct may be to say they didn’t do it. But under a new U.S. Supreme Court ruling, public employer scan impose additional punishment on workers who deny an accusationthat later proves to be true. This seemingly straightforward decisioncould have some unexpected consequences, however, as employers may find it harder to get employees to cooperate in misconduct investigations.
How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success
With lawsuits against employers becoming ever more common—and jury verdicts skyrocketing—your risk of getting sued has increased dramatically even if you’ve done all the right things. Learn how to protect yourself with our free White Paper, How To Survive an Employee Lawsuit: 10 Tips for Success.
Charges Denied
In this case, several federal employees were accused of various improprieties. Theyincluded a worker charged with putting personal charges on a government credit card, a veterans’ hospital nurse accused of having sex with a patient, and a police officer who allegedly made harassing phone calls to co-workers. Each employee denied the charges.
After investigations found the employees had committed the misconduct, the workers were given extra punishment for lying to the investigators. The employees challenged this, arguing they couldn’t be penalized simply for denying the accusations against them.
Court Rules No Right To Lie
The employees argued they had a right to deny the allegations-just as someone accused of a crime can plead “not guilty” without facing perjury charges. But the Supreme Court disagreed. Federal workers, the court ruled, can remain silentor refuse to answer questions, but they don’t have the right tolie.
Victory for Public Employers
Private employers generally have more leeway than their public counterparts in disciplining employees. Public workers are usually af- forded greater due process protections than those in private industry, so the court’s rulingis especially significant. And although the case involved federal employees, its reasoning applies equally to workers for stateand local agencies.
Less Employee Cooperation?
Although the ruling is a victory for government employers, it could have an unintended consequence-public employees could become less willing to cooperate in internal investigations for fear of being penalized if itlater turns out they were less than honest.
One possible strategy for dealing with this, according to Joan Pugh Newman, an attorney with the law firm of Wiley, Price & Radulovich in Alameda, is to create a written policy that goes beyond the court’s ruling. For example, the policy could require employees to cooperate inany internal investigation and also make clear that they could be disciplined or even terminated for not responding to investigators’questions.