The opinion of the court was delivered by: HERMAN
On April 24, 1984, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint. The Defendants, on May 25, 1984, filed a motion to dismiss. The motion has been fully briefed and is now ripe for our consideration.
The Plaintiff is a former investigator for the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board ("LCB"). He was an Assistant Supervisor of Investigations in the LCB's Philadelphia District. On May 11, 1983, he was called to testify before the Pennsylvania Senate Law and Justice Committee, which was investigating possible misconduct by LCB employees. On advice of counsel, Plaintiff asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and declined to answer any questions relating to his official duties.
On May 26, 1983, Plaintiff was suspended from his duties by the LCB. He then fully cooperated with an internal LCB investigation concerning his conduct. That investigation disclosed no misconduct by the Plaintiff. Consequently, Plaintiff was later reinstated by the LCB.
In December of 1983, Plaintiff was notified that he was being transferred to the Allentown District, effective January 19, 1984. Then, in January, 1984, Plaintiff was transferred to the Punxsutawney District. Plaintiff alleges that these transfers were ordered in retaliation for Plaintiff's exercising his constitutionally-protected right against self-incrimination. Plaintiff, rather than accepting the transfers, resigned, effective February 24, 1984. He filed a complaint, with this court, in April of 1984, seeking compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive relief, costs, and attorney's fees. The Defendants' motion to dismiss was filed in May, 1984, and raised numerous grounds justifying dismissal of this action.
On a motion to dismiss, we must accept all of the allegations of a complaint as being true, and must construe the complaint liberally in the light most favorable to Plaintiff. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 636 n.3, 64 L. Ed. 2d 572, 100 S. Ct. 1920 (1980); Robb v. City of Philadelphia, 733 F.2d 286, slip op., at 7 (3d Cir. 1984); Jennings v. Shuman, 567 F.2d 1213, 1216 (3d Cir. 1977).
A. Plaintiff's Right To Remain Silent
Initially, we recognize that the issue presented is neither novel nor unaddressed by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, on several occasions, has had opportunities to review, and rule on, cases with substantially the same facts and issues as are presented here. See Lefkowitz v. Cunningham, 431 U.S. 801, 53 L. Ed. 2d 1, 97 S. Ct. 2132 (1977); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1082, 88 S. Ct. 1913 (1968); Uniformed Sanitation Men Assoc., Inc. v. Comm'r of Sanitation, 392 U.S. 280, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1089, 88 S. Ct. 1917 (1968); Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 17 L. Ed. 2d 562, 87 S. Ct. 616 (1967).
The parties apparently agree that these Supreme Court cases are relevant to the case at hand. The parties disagree, however, on the impact of the decisions on this case. Plaintiff believes that they show that he cannot be disciplined for the exercise of his Fifth Amendment rights, while Defendants argue that the cases allow an employee to be disciplined. We believe that Defendants are correct in this respect, but that the Supreme Court has established safeguards to protect individuals' exercise of their constitutional rights.
Under the analysis developed by the Supreme Court in the relevant decisions, an employee may properly be discharged or disciplined for refusal to answer pertinent questions concerning his official conduct. Uniformed Santitation Men Ass'n v. Comissioner of Sanitation, 392 U.S. 280, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1089, 88 S. Ct. 1917 (1968); Gardner v. Broderick, 392 U.S. 273, 20 L. Ed. 2d 1082, 88 S. Ct. 1913 (1968). However, such discharge is not allowed when the employee is forced to decide between his job and his right to refuse to answer questions which could subject him to legal sanctions. Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 495, 17 L. Ed. 2d 562, 87 S. Ct. 616 (1967). The state could not act as both employer and as prosecutor. National Acceptance Co. of America v. Bathalter, 705 F.2d 924, 928 (7th Cir. 1983). Instead, the state/employer must "immunize" the employee; i.e., not make the answers available for subsequent state criminal prosecution. Only then could the employer require the employee to disclose information, or subject the employee to disciplinary action for refusal to answer. Id. Therefore, Plaintiff here could only be disciplined or discharged by his employer, the LCB, if, prior to questioning, Plaintiff was assured that any answers given by him to the senate committee would be used solely in determining his status within the LCB, and that such responses would not be used against him in a criminal proceeding. Any alternative approach would have forced the Plaintiff to choose between his job and a right guaranteed him by the Constitution.
Additionally, we recognize that Plaintiff, as an enforcement officer, is entitled to no less protection under the Constitution, than other citizens. "Policemen, like teachers and lawyers, are not relegated to a watered-down version of constitutional rights." Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493, 500, 17 L. Ed. 2d 562, 87 S. Ct. 616 (1967). Therefore, even though the community, and commonwealth, may have an interest in maintaining an image of integrity and excellence in its enforcement organizations, such an image may not be maintained through the degradation of an individual's constitutional rights.
These factors, combined with the fact that the hearing was conducted publicly, clearly indicate that any statements given by Plaintiff could have been used against him in a subsequent criminal proceeding. Absent any indication of assurances of immunity being offered, we believe that his exercise of his right to remain silent was proper and that any punishment for such exercise was prohibited. His claim that he was so ...