Disqualifying an individual who has intentionally made a false statement of any material fact in his or her application for public employment

To contact us Click HERE

Disqualifying an individual who has intentionally made afalse statement of any material fact in his or her application for publicemployment United States v. Xavier Alvarez, USSC, Docket #11-310
Civil Service Law §50.4, in pertinent part, provides that“The state civil service department and municipal commissions may refuse toexamine an applicant, or after examination to certify an eligible …
“(f) who has intentionally made a false statement of anymaterial fact in his [or her] application; or
“(g) who has practiced, or attempted to practice, anydeception or fraud in his [or her] application, in his examination, or insecuring his [or her] eligibility or appointment….”

Are these provisions still valid in view of the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v Alverez concerning false speech that is protected by the First Amendment?

In a word, yes! 
In holding the Stolen Valor Act, 18 U.S.C. §704(b) “faciallyinvalid under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment,” Justice Kennedy,writing for the majority, explained: “Permittingthe government to decree [Alvarez's false claim that he had been awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor] to be a criminal offense, whether shoutedfrom the rooftops or made in a barely audible whisper, would endorse govern­mentauthority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements arepunishable. *
Thatgovernmental power, said the majority, "has no clear limiting principle. Our constitutionaltradition stands against the idea that we need Oceania’s Ministry of Truth.[See G. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949) (Centennial ed. 2003)]. Were thislaw to be sus­tained, there could be an endless list of subjects the Na­tionalGovernment or the States could single out."
In contrast, Justice Kennedy pointed out that “Where false claims are made toeffect a fraud or secure moneys or other valuable considerations, say offers ofemployment, it is well established that the Government may restrict speechwithout affronting the First Amendment,” citing Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy,425 U. S., at 771** [emphasis supplied].
Thus it seems clear that the State Civil Service Department or a municipal civil servicecommission may lawfully disqualify an individual for public employment pursuant to CivilService Law §50.4(f) and, or, §50.4(g), consistent with the due process provisionsavailable to the applicant or employee.***.
* Justice Kennedy noted that“The statements [made by Alvarez] do not seem to have been made to secureemployment or financial benefits or admission to privileges reserved for thosewho had earned the Medal.”
** In Virginia the Supreme Courtheld that “fraudulent speech generally falls outside the protections of theFirst Amendment.”
*** §50.4 provides that “ Noperson shall be disqualified pursuant to this subdivision unless he [or she] hasbeen given a written statement of the reasons therefor and afforded anopportunity to make an explanation and to submit facts in opposition to suchdisqualification.
The Alvarez decision is posted on the Internet at:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf