Lachance v. Erickson, 522 U.S. 262, 7 (1998)

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7

268

LACHANCE v. ERICKSON

Opinion of the Court

bid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify"). But there is nothing inherently irrational about such an investigative posture. See Konigsberg v. State Bar of Cal., 366 U. S. 36 (1961).

For these reasons, we hold that a Government agency may take adverse action against an employee because the employee made false statements in response to an underlying charge of misconduct. The judgments of the Court of Appeals are therefore

Reversed.

Page:   Index   Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Last modified: October 4, 2007