Matt v. LaRocca, 71 N.Y.2d 154 (1988)
A public employer is not obligated to inform a public employee that immunity from criminal prosecution attaches automatically when the employee is compelled to answer questions directly related to their official duties under threat of dismissal.
Summary
Matt, a Department of Transportation supervisor, was dismissed for refusing to answer questions about misconduct in his division, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege. He argued that he was not informed of the automatic immunity from criminal prosecution that would attach if he answered. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division’s decision to reinstate Matt, holding that there is no requirement for the State to inform a public employee of this automatic immunity. The court emphasized that the immunity flows directly from the Constitution and is not subject to the employer’s discretion.
Facts
Matt, a supervisory employee, was investigated for unauthorized employee absences and misuse of State property. He initially cooperated, but disciplinary charges were filed, and he was suspended. A criminal investigation was also initiated. The Commissioner of Transportation then requested Matt to testify under oath about matters under his jurisdiction, but Matt refused, invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, even when ordered to answer and warned about insubordination charges.
Procedural History
Disciplinary charges were brought against Matt for insubordination. After a hearing, the Commissioner accepted the Hearing Officer’s determination, but rejected the recommended two-month suspension and instead ordered Matt discharged. Matt then filed an Article 78 proceeding challenging the Commissioner’s determination. The Appellate Division granted the petition, but the Court of Appeals reversed that decision.
Issue(s)
Whether a public employer is required to inform a public employee that they automatically receive immunity from criminal prosecution when compelled to answer questions directly related to their official duties under threat of dismissal.
Holding
No, because the immunity flows directly from the Constitution, attaches automatically by operation of law, and is not subject to the employer’s discretion; thus, the employer has no affirmative obligation to inform the employee of the automatic attachment of immunity.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals distinguished this case from People v. Masiello, which held that a witness before a Grand Jury must be accurately informed about the scope of immunity conferred. Here, Matt’s appearance was at a civil proceeding for work-related misconduct, not a Grand Jury investigation. The Court noted that the immunity protecting Matt flowed directly from the Constitution. It emphasized that public employees do not have an absolute right to refuse to account for their official actions while retaining employment. Citing Gardner v. Broderick, the court stated that the privilege against self-incrimination is not a bar to dismissal where a public servant refuses to answer questions specifically, directly, and narrowly relating to the performance of their official duties, without being required to waive immunity. The court reasoned that because the Commissioner’s representative did not have the power to confer or modify the immunity, there was no basis for concluding that he had an obligation to inform Matt of the automatic attachment of immunity.