Pittsburgh Water and Sewer v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – en banc – reported, precedential – November 18, 2020
Held: Claimant not disqualified under sec. 402 (.1), 43 P.S. sec. 802 (e.1), relating to discharge for failure to submit to or pass a drug test conduct pursuant t9 an employer’s established substance abuse policy, under the following circumstances.
- Claimant had valid prescription for medical marijuana, permitted under state law
- Claimant told ER that she had such a prescription and submitted a copy to the ER
- ER policy allowed a CL to rebut positive test w/in 3 days w/proof of valid prescription
- ER policy prohibited release of positive test to medical review officer (MRO) if CL produced prescription w/in 3 days
- ER policy excused use of marijuana if medically prescribed
- ER policy allowed use of prescription drugs at work
- Marijuana was a “legal drug” when valid prescription, under ER policy
- ER released test result nonetheless – failed to follow its own policy
- ER discharged CL because marijuana illegal under federal law
UCBR and Court found that ER policy was ambiguous and should be construed against ER, which drafted it.
ER failed to follow its own policy, as it is required to do under UC Law.
“[T]he statutory language clearly provides that to be ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(e.1) of the Law, the drug test must be in accordance with employer’s substance abuse policy.” Katera’s Kove, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 130 A.3d 800, 804 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (emphasis added). Here, Employer’s Drug Policy expressly permits “individuals [to] use . . . prescription drugs while at work strictly in accordance with . . . a physician’s prescription[.]” R.R. at 170a. Further, the Drug Policy defines “legal drug” as “prescription medications . . . that have been legally obtained[,]” R.R. at 173a, and explicitly states that “[t]he possession or use of legal drugs while on [Employer’s] premises, during work hours and/or when performing any [Employer] business . . . is permitted[.]” [emphasis in original]
Court recognized that UC law is remedial
“[I]t is to be remembered that the . . . Law is a remedial statute, and, excepting the sections imposing taxes, its provisions must be liberally and broadly construed so that its objectives (insuring that employees who become unemployed through no fault of their own are provided with some semblance of economic security) may be completely achieved. A Special Touch v. Dep’t of Labor & Indus., 228 A.3d 489, 503 (Pa. 2020) (quoting Wedner v. UCBR, 296 A.2d 792, 796 (Pa. 1972)).
