Yes, they certainly can. Faced with that scenario, I would ask my boss if they can afford the lawsuit that will follow.
Under what legal basis would you sue them? Assuming your jurisdiction is “at will” (even if its not, I’m fairly sure most at will jurisdictions would consider not cooperating with a criminal investigation into a workplace crime ‘just cause’ )
Firstly, my job is Union represented (even though I’m not a full member). Secondly, a 5th Amendment case is a civil rights issue. Thirdly, I don’t have to win the lawsuit - I just have to make it painful enough (legal fees, bad publicity, etc.) that it isn’t worth defending. Continuing to pay my salary is much cheaper. I’m not saying that would sue. I’m just saying that I could sue and make my employer wonder if it’s worth paying their attorneys as well as potentially having to pay me.
This is a hypothetical, right?
Yeah but that’s also true if they sacked you for coming into work drunk, it doesn’t mean companies can’t legally sack you for coming into work drunk
I can tell you from first hand experience from being a witness to (separate instances)
Breaking & entering
Domestic violence (as it was called then, now Intimate Partner Violence)
Fraud/Embezzlement
Securities Fraud
In my 35 years of working, and have been the Finance business partner to the Legal team, I’ve seen all these and more. And I have had occasion to consult criminal and employment lawyers in these contexts.
At least in the states where these happened, which are among the more employee friendly states, your employer could fire you if you did not fully cooperate in an investigation. And “I didn’t see nothing” will get you fired if your employer has reason to believe that you did see something.
One case was where the ex husband of one of my coworkers came to the office and was waiting for her in the parking lot. We were all afraid of him, because he was not just a deranged violent religious fanatic, but also a cop in another jurisdiction (different state in a multi state metro area). But we couldn’t just say I didn’t see anything, when we all came scurrying back into the building after seeing him getting out of his truck and someone called 911. The company wanted legal grounds for a protective order that included our premises even if the terrorized spouse couldn’t get one for herself.
Another time someone crowbarred my office door looking for documents related to fraud that he had committed (hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of dollars). I had to at least say that the door to my office was in good order and locked when I left on Friday and forced open when I returned the next Monday. Though in that case I was happy to cooperate.
That’s a false equivalence: coming to work drunk is directly related to job performance.
Telling your coworker that you’re going to help her violent ex get away with assault is also related to job performance.
In terms of answering the OP it’s not. Obviously you can threaten to sue your employer if they lay you off for not cooperating with the police (or for coming into work drunk). And the threat might work. It says nothing about whether your employer can legally lay you off for either of those things.
How do you get that from telling the police “I have nothing to say”? Maybe I told my coworker that I would take care of the guy, and that’s the reason I have nothing to say to the cops.
First off, I started by acknowledging that there is no law that prevents my employer from terminating my employment for not cooperating with the police. There’s also no law that prevents me from suing for wrongful termination (or threatening to do so). So what exactly are you arguing against?
This …
They can “force” you to provide a statement just as much as they can “force” you to sit down with a cop. In that they can sack if you refuse to do it.
Yep, Maybe you might admit to something else- “I didnt see the crime as I was stealing office supplies”. But in many states they can fire you.
One reason they CAN NOT fire you is refusing to take a so-called “Lie Detector” test (some occupations are excepted for some stupid fucking reason).
Generally, if they compel you to testify, they should offer immunity. Not always of course.
Ah, I see. That presupposes that my job is more important to me than my civil rights. It is not. And as I have stated, I would be prepared to defend that position in civil court. That is an entirely different thing than coming to work drunk.
Now on the flip side of this argument, what if I gave a statement to the police and then tried to sue my employer for compelling me to do so? I think the wrongful termination suit has far better chances of success.
Yeah but unless there’s a legal precedent to support that position it would stand just as much chance of success as suing because you were laid off for being drunk.
As I said - my civil rights are more important to me than my job. My job is more important to me than being drunk. I don’t understand why you keep harping on something that was not included in the OP and not part of the hypothetical. You are the only poster that has mentioned it.
Also unrelated to the OP but relevant to your comments, being “laid off” is not the same thing as being fired or terminated. Layoffs are when your position is eliminated. The company can’t hire someone to replace you without offering you the position first. Being fired is when you are eliminated from your position and they can hire a replacement the next day.
My company has a policy requiring employees to cooperate in any workplace investigation including specific language on government investigations. Failure to cooperate is grounds for termination. This policy isn’t a violation of any law that I’m aware of. Typically our workplace investigations don’t involve criminal activity, and I’ve only run into a handful of employees who refused to participate in an investigation until I explained the policy to them. Quite frankly, if I had an employee who refused to talk to the police about someone who came in and assaulted another employee I’d be glad to fire them.
What if they agreed to talk to the police but insisted they would say nothing without an attorney present?
Fair enough, if you’re going to put her violent ex in a coffin, then I suppose it’s OK for you to not tattle on the guy to the po-po, and would explain your hesitance to talk.
If you’re just a guy out to protect his own interests, as it appears the OP is, don’t expect me to stand by your side after hanging your coworker out to dry.
To be honest, I’m uncertain because I’ve never been in this specific situation. When it comes to most government investigations, we’ll have our employee speak to our attorneys, but they represent the company not the employee. If I were to hazard a guess, we’d be fine with the employee retaining their own legal counsel just so long as they participated in the investigation.
As far as the company policy goes, participation means providing truthful answers. If we feel their statement was knowingly false, like they claimed to see nothing but our security cameras show they were present and even reacted to what they saw, we’d terminate employment.
No. It comes from the Constitution.
The point is, a suspect’s statement is inadmissible if it wasn’t given voluntarily. Before Miranda it was sometimes unclear if a suspect’s statement was voluntary, or coerced. Many statements were ruled inadmissible.
After Miranda, if a suspect is read his rights then his statement is assumed to be voluntary, and hence automatically considered admissible.
It is widely misunderstood because of many bad movies where criminals get away on a technicality.