In the case of Gardner v. Broderick, a New York City police officer was subpoenaed by a grand jury investigating alleged corruption among public officials and refused to waive his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. The officer was subsequently discharged from his position for refusing to answer questions about his official duties without immunity from prosecution. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the officer, stating that he could not be fired solely for invoking his constitutional protections against self-incrimination. According to the court's decision, public employees cannot be forced into a situation where they must either incriminate themselves or risk losing their jobs; this would constitute coercion incompatible with the Constitution's protection against compelled testimonial disclosure.

In the dissenting opinion for Gardner v. Broderick, Justice White argued that a public employee does not have an absolute constitutional right to his job and can be dismissed if he refuses to answer potentially incriminating questions related to his employment. He contended that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of Garrity v. New Jersey (1967), which held that public employees could not be compelled under threat of dismissal to waive their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. According to Justice White, Garrity did not establish an unqualified privilege for public employees but rather prohibited only coerced confessions used in subsequent criminal proceedings. Therefore, while it would violate the Constitution if statements made by Gardner were used against him in court due to coercion from his employer, this did not mean he had a constitutional right refuse answering any question about official duties without facing potential job loss.