Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Rebel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided December 22, 1998No. 76 W.D. Appeal Docket 1997Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partNigro, Justice

I dissent from the majority’s conclusion that Appellant may not collect unemployment benefits because he refused to submit to his employer’s random drug testing policy. While I generally agree with the majority that such a refusal may constitute willful misconduct, I find that the specific facts of this case dictate a contrary result.

As stated by the majority, under the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Act, an employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when his unemployment is due to discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rossi v. Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1996
  2. Hershey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1992
  3. Ford v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · 1982

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API