# Rebel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · December 22, 1998 · 555 Pa. 114

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717566

## Case

- **Full name:** David REBEL, Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BOARD OF REVIEW, Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 22, 1998
- **Citations:** 555 Pa. 114; 723 A.2d 156; 1998 Pa. LEXIS 2719
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Zappala
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor
- **Cited by:** 30 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717566

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the claimant’s refusal to submit to drug testing pursuant to his employer’s policy, on the ground that the drug policy violated his right to privacy, was willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law

## Opinion text

ZAPPALA, Justice,
concurring.
Although I agree with the Court’s decision, I write separately to stress its narrow scope. The limited issue presented by this appeal is whether the Appellant’s refusal to submit to his private employer’s drug testing requirement constituted “willful misconduct” pursuant to § 802 of the Unemployment Compensation Law. 43 P.S. § 802(e). As the Court’s opinion properly articulates, that determination requires a consideration of “all the circumstances” surrounding the employee’s (Appellant’s) conduct. Rossi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 544 Pa. 261, 266 , 676 A.2d 194, 197 (1996).
This Court has stated that if there was “good cause” for the employee’s conduct (i.e., the employee’s refusal to submit to drug testing), then such conduct will not be deemed “willful misconduct” under the Law, and, consequently, will not be deemed a basis for refusing unemployment compensation. Rossi, at 267, 676 A.2d 194 , 676 A.2d at 197-98 . In the case at bar, Appellant has asserted that the invasion of his privacy rights by the drug test satisfies the “good cause” standard, and, therefore, his conduct was not “willful misconduct” under the Law. While I agree with the Court’s analysis of the Law and its application of cases interpreting it, I think it is critical to stress that this decision has absolutely no ramifications with respect to actions in tort based upon invasion of privacy, or the protection against unreasonable government intrusions provided by the state and federal constitutions. See Intervenor Duquesne Light Company’s Brief at 6-7 (stating that “this is not a case for tortious invasion of privacy but for unemployment benefits”); Majority Opinion at 158-59, citing, Chandler v. Miller, 520 U.S. 305 , 117 S.Ct. 1295, 1305 , 137 L.Ed.2d 513 *123 (1997) (stating that Fourth Amendment analysis is not applicable to private sector drug testing).
In sum, this decision does not pass judgment on the employer’s conduct, but, instead, simply disallows the employee, Appellant, from receiving unemployment benefits.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9717566. Public record. Not legal advice.