Among the most important California Supreme Court decisions affecting public employee investigations is Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles, decided in 1985. While Skelly addresses property interests in continued employment and Lubey focuses on liberty interests and reputational harm, Lybarger occupies a distinct but equally critical space. It governs how public employers may compel statements from employees during internal investigations while respecting constitutional protections against self-incrimination.
In Lybarger, the California Supreme Court considered whether a public employer could discipline an employee for refusing to answer questions during an internal investigation when those answers might be self-incriminating. The case arose in the context of a law enforcement investigation, but its principles apply broadly across public employment. The Court was required to reconcile the government’s legitimate interest in investigating employee misconduct with the employee’s constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment.
The Court began by recognizing that public employers have authority to require employees to answer job-related questions as part of an administrative investigation. Unlike private employers, public agencies must also contend with constitutional limitations. An employee cannot be compelled to provide statements that may be used against them in a criminal prosecution. At the same time, a public employer is not required to forego administrative investigations merely because the conduct under review could have criminal implications.
Lybarger resolved this tension by adopting a rule derived from federal constitutional doctrine. The Court held that a public employer may compel an employee to answer questions narrowly related to the employee’s official duties, and may discipline the employee for refusing to answer, provided the employer first advises the employee that the compelled statements cannot be used against them in a criminal proceeding. In other words, the employee must be given immunity coextensive with the Fifth Amendment privilege before discipline may be imposed for noncooperation.
This requirement is now commonly referred to as a Lybarger warning. The warning informs the employee that they are required to answer questions as part of an administrative investigation, that failure to do so may result in discipline, and that the statements and their fruits may not be used in a criminal prosecution. Without such an advisement, discipline imposed for refusal to answer violates constitutional protections.
The Court in Lybarger emphasized that the constitutional violation does not arise from compelling answers per se, but from forcing an employee to choose between self-incrimination and job loss without adequate protection. By ensuring that compelled statements are immunized from criminal use, the government preserves both its ability to investigate employee misconduct and the employee’s constitutional rights.
Importantly, Lybarger does not grant public employees a right to remain silent in administrative investigations without consequence. Once proper immunity is afforded, refusal to answer job-related questions may constitute insubordination or misconduct warranting discipline. Conversely, Lybarger does not permit employers to use compelled statements as a shortcut to criminal prosecution. The administrative and criminal processes must remain constitutionally distinct.
The decision also clarifies the boundary between administrative investigations and criminal investigations. While law enforcement agencies may conduct parallel inquiries, public employers must be careful to maintain the separation required by constitutional law. Statements compelled under threat of discipline belong to the administrative sphere and may not be shared or used in a manner that undermines the immunity granted to the employee.
Revisiting Lybarger remains important because internal investigations are a routine feature of public employment, particularly in safety-sensitive and regulated environments. Missteps at the investigative stage can render discipline vulnerable to legal challenge, even where underlying misconduct is substantiated. Lybarger serves as a reminder that constitutional compliance is not an abstract concern, but a practical requirement that shapes how investigations must be conducted.
Nearly forty years after it was decided, Lybarger v. City of Los Angeles continues to define the constitutional limits of compelled cooperation in public employment investigations. Together with Skelly and Lubey, it forms part of a coherent framework governing property interests, liberty interests, and self-incrimination protections in California public employment law.