Court Opinion

ID: 9910737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-12-18 15:09:01.125379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:54:13.067454
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael A. Carr,                      :
                                      :
                         Appellant    :
                                      :
                   v.                 : No. 658 C.D. 2022
                                      : Submitted: November 6, 2023
Township of Falls and International   :
Union of Operating Engineers          :
Local 542                             :

BEFORE:     HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
            HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
            HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                     FILED: December 18, 2023

            Michael A. Carr (Employee) appeals the order of the Bucks County
Court of Common Pleas (trial court) granting the renewed Motion for Summary
Judgment filed by the Township of Falls (Township) and entering judgment in the
Township’s favor and against Employee with respect to Employee’s three-count
Complaint against the Township. We affirm.
            The Joint Stipulated Facts of the parties may be summarized as follows.
See Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 43a-46a. On January 23, 2008, Employee began
his employment in the Township’s Department of Public Works (DPW) as a full-
time laborer. He eventually moved up to the position of Operator Class 1 and was
later promoted to Operator Class 2. As an Operator Class 2, Employee had a
commercial driver’s license (CDL) and was qualified to operate one or more trucks,
motor vehicles, and yard and heavy equipment. Employee was also a member of the
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 542 (Union).
                On November 20, 2017, Employee was involved in a minor accident
while driving a DPW truck at the Township’s landfill. In accordance with Township
policy, Employee was sent for a post-accident drug and alcohol test at WorkPlace
Health. On November 27, 2017, the Township received the results of the drug and
alcohol screening that Employee had tested positive for the presence of marijuana.
Based on the positive test result, Employee received an eight-day suspension without
pay.1 Specifically, the November 30, 2017 letter from the Township’s Manager that
was hand delivered to Employee stated, in relevant part:

      1
          Article 34 of the parties’ Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) states, in relevant part:

                       The use or possession of . . . marijuana . . . by employees
                while on duty or on the work site is prohibited. Employees must
                not report for work under the influence of . . . marijuana . . . .
                Violations of these rules will be ground[s] for disciplinary action.

                        An employee will be required to submit blood, urine, or
                other diagnostic tests to detect . . . drugs (or drug metabolites) in
                his/her system whenever an employee is involved in an on-the-job
                accident which result[s] in more than $200 in damages to property
                or equipment or a reasonable suspicion of drug . . . use[] as
                determined by the [DPW D]irector . . . .

                       Reasonable suspicion may be based on an on-the-job
                accident . . . .

                        If an initial screening test indicates positive findings, a
                confirmatory test, using gas chromatography or mass spectrometry,
                will be conducted and screening performed by a laboratory for the
                presence of drugs or alcohol. If an employee’s test is positive, the
                employee will be required to complete a drug rehabilitation program
(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                 2
              Based on the results of your drug and alcohol screening,
              you are suspended for 8 days without pay. In addition, you
              must participate in an evaluation by a Substance Abuse
              Professional (SAP) and successfully complete any
              education, counseling or treatment prescribed by the SAP
              prior to returning to work. The Township must receive a
              report from the SAP that you have successfully complied
              with the SAP’s recommendation, and you must provide a
              negative return-to-duty drug test, at your expense, prior to
              your return to work. After you return to work, you will be
              subject to random testing for drugs and/or alcohol at least
              6 times during the next 12 months, and depending on the

              prior to his or her return to work. . . . Employees on probation as a
              result of prior violations of the drug and alcohol policy will be
              subject to random testing during the course of the probationary
              period.

                      Any employee found to have a blood-alcohol concentration
              of .02% or more . . . while on the work site or performing official
              duties, shall receive a five (5)[-]day suspension without pay on the
              first offense and shall be required to participate in a drug
              rehabilitation program. In addition, the employee shall be placed
              on probation for twelve (12) months and shall be subject to random
              drug and alcohol testing for the period. . . .

                      An employee found to have a detectable concentration of
              any drug other than marijuana or alcohol in his or her system . . .
              shall receive a ten (10)[-]day suspension without pay on the first
              offense and shall be required to participate in a drug rehabilitation
              program. In addition, the employee shall be placed on probation for
              twenty-four (24) months and shall be subject to random drug and
              alcohol testing for that period. . . .

                      Employees who take . . . prescribed medication are
              responsible for being aware of any effect the medication may have
              on the performance of their duties and must promptly report to the
              supervisors the use of medication likely to impair their ability to do
              their job. Any employee who fails to do so shall be subject to
              disciplinary action up to and including discharge.

R.R. at 87a-88a.
                                                3
                 evaluation of the SAP, could be subject to this testing for
                 a longer period of time.
Trial Court Exhibit (Trial Ct. Ex.) I, Original Record (O.R.) at 264 (emphasis
added).2 During his deposition, Employee admitted receiving this letter from the
Township. Trial Ct. Ex. D, O.R. at 67-68.3
                 Under federal Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations, before
returning to work, Employee was also required to submit to an evaluation by an SAP
and successfully complete education, counseling, or treatment prescribed by the
SAP.4 The Township also required a report by the SAP. On December 18, 2017,

       2
          Because the Trial Court Exhibits in the Original Record were filed electronically and have
a number of forms of pagination, the page numbers referenced in this memorandum opinion reflect
the electronic pagination.

       3
           As the trial court noted:

                  Under the [rule announced in Nanty-Glo Borough v. American
                 Surety Co., 163 A. 523 (Pa. 1932) (Nanty-Glo)], the party moving
                 for summary judgment may not rely upon its own testimony or
                 affidavits, or those of its witnesses, to establish the nonexistence of
                 genuine issues of material fact, since the credibility of those
                 submissions is reserved for the factfinder. HSBC Bank, N.A. v.
                 Donaghy, 101 A.3d 129, 134 n.10 (Pa. Super. 2014). However,
                 Nanty-Glo “does not preclude the grant of summary judgment when
                 the moving party relies on the testimonial evidence of an adverse
                 party.” Id.

R.R. at 239a n.2.

       4
         Section 40.307(a)-(e) of Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), entitled
“What is the SAP’s function in prescribing the employee’s follow-up tests?,” specifically provides:

                 (a) As a[n] SAP, for each employee who has committed a DOT drug
                 or alcohol regulation violation, and who seeks to resume the
                 performance of safety-sensitive functions, you must establish a
                 written follow-up testing plan. You do not establish this plan until
(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                   4
              after you determine that the employee has successfully complied
              with your recommendations for education and/or treatment.

              (b) You must present a copy of this plan directly to the [designated
              employer representative (DER)].

              (c) You are the sole determiner of the number and frequency of
              follow-up tests and whether these tests will be for drugs, alcohol, or
              both, unless otherwise directed by the appropriate DOT agency
              regulation. . . .

              (d) However, you must, at a minimum, direct that the employee be
              subject to six unannounced follow-up tests in the first 12 months
              of safety-sensitive duty following the employee’s return to safety-
              sensitive functions.

                      (1) You may require a greater number of follow-up
                      tests during the first 12-month period of safety
                      sensitive duty . . . .

                      (2) You may also require follow-up tests during the
                      48 months of safety-sensitive duty following this
                      first 12-month period.

                      (3) You are not to establish the actual dates for the
                      follow-up tests you prescribe. The decision on
                      specific dates to test is the employer’s.

                      (4) As the employer, you must not impose additional
                      testing requirements (e.g., under company authority)
                      on the employee that go beyond the SAP’s follow-
                      up testing plan.

              (e) The requirements of the SAP’s follow-up testing plan “follow
              the employee” to subsequent employers or through breaks in
              service.

49 C.F.R. §40.307(a)-(e) (emphasis added).

       In turn, Section 40.309(a)-(d) outlines the Township’s duties as an employer, stating:

(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                5
Steven Garnham (Garnham) assessed and evaluated Employee.5                         Garnham
recommended that Employee complete four hours of drug/alcohol education with a
follow-up evaluation after completing this requirement.
              On December 29, 2017, Garnham wrote to the Township that Employee
had completed his evaluation and four hours of education with John Rooney, M.S.,
on December 26 and 27, 2017. See R.R. at 60a. Garnham wrote on the first page of

              (a) As the employer, you must carry out the SAP’s follow-up
              testing requirements. You may not allow the employee to continue
              to perform safety-sensitive functions unless follow-up testing is
              conducted as directed by the SAP.

              (b) You should schedule follow-up tests on dates of your own
              choosing, but you must ensure that the tests are unannounced
              with no discernable pattern as to their timing, and that the
              employee is given no advance notice.

              (c) You cannot substitute any other tests (e.g., those carried out
              under the random testing program) conducted on the employee for
              this follow-up testing requirement.

              (d) You cannot count a follow-up test that has been cancelled as a
              completed test. A cancelled follow-up test must be recollected.

49 C.F.R. §40.309(a)-(d) (emphasis added).

       5
         Section 40.295(a)-(b) of Title 49 of the C.F.R. specifically prohibits a second SAP
evaluation stating, in relevant part:

              (a) As an employee with a DOT drug and alcohol regulation
              violation, when you have been evaluated by a[n] SAP, you must not
              seek a second SAP’s evaluation in order to obtain another
              recommendation.

              (b) As an employer, you must not seek a second SAP’s evaluation
              if the employee has already been evaluated by a qualified SAP.

49 C.F.R. §40.295(a)-(b).
                                              6
the letter that “[t]here are no aftercare recommendation[s]” and a “testing schedule
[was] on the second page” of the letter. Id. On the second page of the letter,
Garnham stated: “I recommend that [E]mployee be tested 6 times for drugs and
alcohol per year for the first year and 6 times for drugs in the second year following
his return to duty.” Id. at 61a (emphasis added).
               On or about January 8, 2018, Township Manager Peter Gray (Manager)
called Employee at his home to discuss his return to work. Employee returned to
work on January 12, 2018. Manager did not release Garnham’s SAP report to
Employee. Employee’s probationary period for follow-up drug and alcohol testing
started on January 12, 2018.
               On May 29, 2019, at 6:10 a.m., DPW’s Director, Jason Lawson
(Director), handed Employee an envelope in front of his co-workers containing
paperwork for him to report for a drug test the same day.6 The drug test requested
on May 29, 2019, was not a random drug test. Rather, the May 29, 2019 drug test
was a follow-up drug test for Employee’s return-to-work testing in connection with
the November 20, 2017 accident. That same day, Director wrote a memorandum to

       6
           Section 382.211 of Title 49 of the C.F.R. states, in relevant part: “No driver shall refuse
to submit to . . . a follow-up alcohol or controlled substance test required under §382.311. No
employer shall permit a driver who refuses to submit to such tests to perform or continue to
perform safety-sensitive functions.” 49 C.F.R. §382.211 (emphasis added); see also Section
40.191(a)(1), 49 C.F.R. §40.191(a)(1) (“As an employee, you have refused to take a drug test if
you . . . [f]ail to appear for any test . . . within a reasonable time, as determined by the employer,
consistent with applicable DOT agency regulations, after being directed to do so by the
employer.”) (emphasis added). In turn, Section 382.311 states: “The requirements for follow-up
testing must be performed in accordance with 49 [C.F.R.] part 40, subpart O.” 49 C.F.R. §382.311.
Thus, this section specifically incorporates the testing requirements imposed by the SAP under
Section 40.307 outlined above, and the random testing requirements required to be performed by
the Township under Section 40.309, also outlined above, and specifically provides that a refusal
precludes the Township from permitting Employee to perform the duties of his position.
                                                  7
Manager recommending that Employee be immediately terminated for leaving work
without submitting to the requested drug test.
                 As outlined above, under the DOT regulations, an SAP report is
required before an employee returns to work, and the employee must complete the
SAP process required by the Township. The SAP report herein complied with the
DOT regulations for the number and frequency of the testing without stating the
actual test dates, which are set by the Township. The SAP report recommended that
Employee be tested six times for drugs and alcohol in the first year after he returned
to work and six times for drugs in the second year after his return.
                 On June 3, 2019, the Township gave Employee a letter notifying him
of a Loudermill7 hearing to be conducted prior to his termination. In the letter, the
Manager referenced two provisions in the Township’s Employee Handbook,
Township Policy 701 (Employee Conduct),8 and Township Policy 710 (Drug and

       7
          Referring to Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532 (1985), which
requires that a union member be given notice and an opportunity to respond to any charges levied
against him in a formal hearing before being terminated.

       8
           Township Policy 701 states, in pertinent part:

                 To ensure orderly operations and provide the best possible work
                 environment, [the] Township expects employees to follow rules of
                 conduct that will protect the interests and safety of all employees
                 and the organization.

                 It is not possible to list all the forms of behavior that are considered
                 unacceptable in the workplace. The following are examples of
                 infractions of rules of conduct that may result in disciplinary action,
                 up to and including termination of employment:

                                                  ***

(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                    8
Alcohol Testing),9 as well as Article 34 of the CBA, the requirements of his prior
discipline, and the relevant DOT regulations.

                        ●       Working under the influence of alcohol or
                                illegal drugs[; and]

                        ●       Possession . . . or use of alcohol or illegal
                                drugs in the workplace, while on duty, or
                                while operating employer-owned vehicles or
                                equipment[.]

R.R. at 96a.

       9
           Township Policy 710 states, in relevant part:

                 To help ensure a safe and healthy working environment, . . .
                 employees may be asked to provide body substance samples (such
                 as urine and/or blood) randomly once per year to determine the
                 illicit or illegal use of drugs and alcohol.

                 In particular, employees who are required to drive or utilize heavy
                 or dangerous equipment as part of their job are subject to random
                 drug and/or alcohol testing.

                 If the Township has a reasonable basis to conclude that an on-duty
                 employee is under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs, the
                 Township has the right to require the employee to undergo drug
                 and/or alcohol testing.

                 Further, any employee who is required to drive or utilize heavy or
                 dangerous equipment as part of his or her job and who is involved
                 in an accident, will be subject to immediate drug and/or alcohol
                 testing and will be placed in an administrative leave status pending
                 the results of such testing.

                 Refusal to submit to drug and/or alcohol testing may result in
                 disciplinary action, up to and including termination of
                 employment.

R.R. at 99a (emphasis added).
                                                  9
               On June 10, 2019, Employee appeared at the Loudermill hearing with
a Union representative. On June 12, 2019, the Township terminated Employee’s
employment, referencing the same provisions and policies as cited in the Manager’s
June 3, 2019 letter.
               On June 13, 2019, the Union filed a Step One grievance for Employee’s
termination, claiming wrongful termination, with the requested remedy of bringing
him back to work. On June 17, 2019, the Township’s Director denied the grievance.
On June 18, 2019, the Union notified the Township that it would proceed to a Step
Two grievance. On June 24, 2019, Employee attended the grievance meeting with
a Union representative. On July 1, 2019, the Township’s Manager denied the
grievance. The Union did not pursue any further remedy on Employee’s behalf after
the Township denied the Step Two grievance.10
               Employee commenced the instant action by writ of summons on
September 15, 2019.11 Following a period of pre-complaint discovery, on January
20, 2020, Employee filed the instant three-count Complaint asserting the following

       10
          Specifically, the Union’s counsel sent Employee a letter on July 3, 2019, explaining why
it would not pursue Step Three grievance arbitration on his behalf:

               The reasons for this decision, while you may disagree with them, is
               the fact that you were instructed to take a drug test and you refused
               to take that test. I understand that you do not believe you are under
               any compulsion to take the test[,] but your refusal leaves us with the
               decision that we would not be able to prevail at arbitration. I
               understand that you believe that your probation in this matter ended.
               The Union believes that this does not excuse your decision to refuse
               to take the test. The Union wishes you good luck in the future.

Trial Ct. Ex. E, O.R. at 256.

       11
            Although Employee initially named the Union as a defendant, on March 12, 2021, he
filed a stipulation dismissing all of his claims against the Union. See R.R. at 38a-39a.
                                                10
claims for damages and reinstatement against the Township: (1) invasion of privacy
in violation of article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution12; (2) invasion of
privacy under Pennsylvania law based on the constitutional claim; and (3) wrongful
discharge as a violation of public policy. See R.R. at 13a-21a.
                On June 25, 2021, the Township filed a Motion for Summary Judgment
in which it claimed: (1) the statute commonly referred to as the Political Subdivision
Tort Claims Act (Tort Claims Act)13 bars Employee’s claims; (2) Employee’s
wrongful discharge claim fails because he’s a member of the Union; (3) Employee’s
constitutional claim fails because he had no reasonable expectation of privacy; and
(4) Employee’s invasion of privacy claim cannot be established as a matter of law.
                On November 3, 2021, the parties appeared in the trial court for an on-
the-record pretrial conference to discuss, inter alia, motions in limine, proposed jury
instructions, and identifying principles of law that are in dispute. See O.R. at 257.
On November 5, 2021, the trial court issued an order directing, inter alia, that the
Township submit an amended Motion for Summary Judgment. See id. at 276-77.
As directed, on December 17, 2021, the Township filed its renewed Motion for
Summary Judgment claiming: (1) Employee’s constitutional invasion of privacy
claim fails because there was no search conducted or urine collected or analyzed; (2)
Employee cannot recover money damages based on the purported violation of his

      12
           Pa. Const. art. I, §8. Article I, section 8 states:

                The people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
                possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no
                warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall
                issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without
                probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation subscribed to by
                the affiant.

      13
           42 Pa. C.S. §§8541-8542.
                                                   11
constitutional rights; (3) the Tort Claims Act bars Employee’s state law invasion of
privacy and wrongful termination claims; (4) Employee’s wrongful discharge claim
fails because he is a member of the Union; and (5) Employee’s invasion of privacy
claim fails as a matter of law. See id. at 289-92.
                On May 19, 2022, the trial court issued an order granting the
Township’s renewed Motion for Summary Judgment and entered judgment in the
Township’s favor and against Employee. Employee then filed the instant timely
appeal of the trial court’s order.14
                On appeal, Employee claims: (1) the trial court erred in entering
judgment in the Township’s favor on Employee’s claim that the Township’s request
that he submit to a test of his urine constituted an illegal search or seizure under
article I, section 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Fourth Amendment to
the United States Constitution;15 (2) the trial court erred in entering judgment in the

      14
           As this Court has explained:

                [W]e will only disturb a trial court’s order granting summary
                judgment where there has been an error of law or a clear abuse of
                discretion. Summary Judgment is properly granted when, viewing
                the record in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there is
                no genuine issue of material fact[,] and the moving party is entitled
                to judgment as a matter of law. All doubts as to the existence of a
                genuine issue of material fact must be resolved against the moving
                party.

Metropolitan Edison Company v. Reading Area Water Authority, 937 A.2d 1173, 1174 n.2 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2007) (citations omitted).

      15
           U.S. Const. amend. IV. The Fourth Amendment states:

                The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
                and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
                violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
(Footnote continued on next page…)
                                                 12
Township’s favor on Employee’s invasion of privacy claim as barred by the Tort
Claims Act; and (3) the trial court erred in entering judgment in the Township’s
favor on Employee’s wrongful discharge claim because it is barred by the Tort
Claims Act and the Public Employe Relations Act (PERA).16
               However, after reviewing the record, Employee’s brief and oral
argument, and the relevant case law, we conclude that the appellate issues have been
ably resolved in the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the Honorable Robert O.
Baldi. Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s order on the basis of his opinion in
the matter of Carr v. Township of Falls (C.P. Bucks, No. 2019-06230, filed August
16, 2022).

                                            MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

               supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the
               place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      16
           Act of July 23, 1970, P.L. 563, as amended, 43 P.S. §§1101.101-1101.2301.
                                              13
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Michael A. Carr,                       :
                                       :
                         Appellant     :
                                       :
                   v.                  : No. 658 C.D. 2022
                                       :
Township of Falls and International    :
Union of Operating Engineers           :
Local 542                              :

                                      ORDER

            AND NOW, this 18th day of December, 2023, the order of the Bucks
County Court of Common Pleas dated May 20, 2022, is AFFIRMED.

                                       __________________________________
                                       MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                     2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 1
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                IN THE COURT           OF COMMON           PLEAS OF BUCKS COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      CIVIL ACTION — LAW

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           MICHAEL A. CARR
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Plaintiff,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Vv.                                          :        No.      2019-06230

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           TOWNSHIP OF FALLS, et al
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Defendants.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               OPINION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               I.        INTRODUCTION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Michael A. Carr (“Appellant”) filed a Notice of Appeal from this Court’s Decision and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Order, dated May 23, 2022, in which the undersigned granted Summary                         Judgment in favor of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Township of Falls (“Appellee”)! and against Appellant.                 This Court’s Opinion is being filed as

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           required by Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure (“Pa.R.A.P.”) 1925(a) and in compliance
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           therewith.    For the reasons stated below, the undersigned respectfully suggests the instant Appeal

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           should be denied.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Il.       FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL                      BACKGROUND

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Appellant began his employment with Appellee on January 23, 2008, and continued such

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           employment for over a decade, beginning as a full-time laborer, with promotions to operator class

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1, and later to operator class 2.       During his employment with Appellee, Appellant was certified

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           with a commercial driver’s license and was qualified to operate one or more trucks, motor vehicles,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           yard equipment, and heavy equipment. On November 20, 2017, Appellant was involved in a minor

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           car accident with another employee             while driving a department truck at work.                 Pursuant to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellee’s policy, Appellant was sent for post-accident drug and alcohol screening.
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ' Although the International Union of Operating Engineers Local 452 was initially named as a Defendant, Appellant
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           filed a stipulation voluntarily dismissing all of his claims against said Defendant on March 12, 2021.
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. *                 2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 2
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   On November 27, 2017, Appellee received the results of Appellant’s drug and alcohol

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           screening, which indicated Appellant had tested positive for marijuana.    Based upon those results,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellant was suspended for eight days without pay pursuant to Appellee’s policies.          Appellant

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           was also required to participate in an evaluation by a Substance Abuse Professional (“SAP”) and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           to complete any education, counseling, or treatment prescribed by the SAP prior to returning to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           work.   Appellee also required that the SAP issue a report stating that Appellant had complied with

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           the SAP’s recommendations and required that a negative return-to-work drug test be completed at

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellant’s expense.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Appellant was notified on November 30, 2017 that after his return to work, he would be

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           subject to testing for drugs and alcohol “at least six times during the next 12 months, and depending

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           on the evaluation of the SAP, could be subject to this testing for a longer period of time.” On May

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           29, 2019, Appellant was handed a sealed envelope and told to report for drug testing at Quest
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Diagnostics in “connection with his prior positive drug testing from last year.”     Appellant asked

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           for an explanation as to why said testing was required, and when none was given, took a sick day

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           and left work.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   On June 3, 2019, Appellee gave Appellant written notice under Loudermill of its intent to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           terminate his employment and his right to a hearing.     Appellant was informed that his refusal to

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           take the drug test on May 29, 2019, violated the SAP’s written recommendations, Pennsylvania

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Department of Transportation regulations, Appellee’s Policy 701 and 710, and Article 34 of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellant’s Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) with Appellee.          Appellant and his union

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           representatives   submitted   a written response   to the Loudermill   letter and appeared     for the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Loudermill hearing on June 10, 2019.    Appellant was subsequently terminated on June 12, 2019.
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.*                      2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 3
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Appellant      filed his Complaint   on January   20, 2020,    seeking   monetary   damages    and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           injunctive relief for invasion of his privacy under Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (Count J), common law invasion of privacy (Count II), and wrongful discharge and violation of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           public policy (Count III). Appellee filed a Motion for Summary Judgment on June 25, 2021.                 On

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           November 3, 2021, the parties appeared before the undersigned for an on-the-record Pre-Trial

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Conference.       Appellee renewed its Motion for Summary Judgment on December 17, 2021.                  As

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           mentioned above, the undersigned granted Appellee’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           on May 19, 2022, and Appellant filed his Notice of Appeal from that Decision on June 22, 2022.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              Ti.         STATEMENT         OF MATTERS        COMPLAINED           OF ON APPEAL

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    On July 13, 2022, Appellant filed his Concise Statement of Matters Complained of On

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appeal pursuant to Pa.R.A.P. 1925(b), which are set forth verbatim below:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     1.   Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it held Falls Township did not violate
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          plaintiff's right of privacy under Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, where
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the evidence supports the May 29, 2019 drug test was not a random test, there was no
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          suspicion or probable cause to test, plaintiff did not refuse the test, and the test violated
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          controlling Township policies governing the follow-up drug test?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    2.    Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had an
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          expectation of privacy to be free from the May 29, 2019 drug test under Article I, § 8
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          of the Pennsylvania Constitution, where the evidence supports the May 29, 2019 drug
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          test was not a random test, there was no suspicion or probable cause to test, plaintiff
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          did not refuse the test, and the test violated controlling Township policies governing
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          the follow-up drug test?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    3.    Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had raised
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          genuine issues of material fact as to necessary elements of his Article I, § 8 claims,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          under no. 1 above, sufficient to require the issues to be submitted to a jury under Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          1035.2?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    4.    Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had raised
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          genuine issues of material fact as to necessary elements of his Article I, § 8 claims,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          under no. 2 above, sufficient to require the issues to be submitted to a jury under Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          1035.2?
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. -      2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 4
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had cited
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            evidence in the record under no. 1 above, controverting the evidence cited in support
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            of Fall Township’s motion, under Rule 1035.2?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had cited
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            evidence in the record under no. 2 above, controverting the evidence cited in support
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            of Fall Township’s motion, under Rule 1035.3?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under its order and decision docketed May
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            23, 2022 dismissing Count I where, on the fulsome record, there is no controlling law
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            in this Commonwealth from which the trier of fact could find plaintiff has not made
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            out a justiciable claim against Falls Township?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under its order and decision docketed May
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            23, 2022 dismissing Count I, where Falls Township failed to cite (and the Court has
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            failed to find) any dispositive fact in the record not grounded on oral testimony which
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            precludes summary judgment under Nanty-Glo v. American Surety Co, 309 Pa. 236
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (1932), under Rule 1035.2?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff's invasion
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            of privacy claim (nos. | and 2 above) bottomed upon plaintiff's rights under Article I,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            § 8 excepts plaintiff's claim against Falls Township from the Political Subdivision Tort
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Claims Act [PSTCA]?
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when held, under an alternate rationale,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             plaintiff's invasion of privacy claim as a common law claim, is “deficient as a matter
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             of law” because plaintiff did not suffer an “invasion”, plaintiff never complied with the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             request .. . to submit to a drug test on May 29, 2019[,] and no private information was
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             ever obtained or disclosed?”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under this alternate rationale, when      it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            refused to find plaintiff had cited evidence in the record under no. 9 above,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            controverting the evidence cited in support of Fall’s Township’s motion, under Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1035.3?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under this alternate rationale, when      it
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            refused to find plaintiff had cited evidence in the record under no.           10 above,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            controverting   evidence   cited in support   of Falls Township’s   motion,   under Rule
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            1035.3?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           . Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under its order and decision docketed May
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             23, 2022 dismissing Count II where, on the fulsome record, there is no controlling law
                                                                                                                                                                                                                             in this Commonwealth from which the trier of fact could find plaintiff has not made
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             out a justiciable claim against Falls Township?
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. *         2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 5
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           14. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it held (and/or intimated a holding)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim bottomed upon Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Constitution, is barred under his participation in a PERA-based collective bargaining
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               agreement (CBA)?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           15. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it held (and/or intimated a holding)
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               plaintiff's wrongful discharge claim bottomed upon Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Constitution, is barred under Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act [PSTCA]?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           16. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had cited
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               evidence in the record under no. 14 above, controverting evidence cited in support of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Falls Township’s motion, under Rule 1035.3?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           17. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had cited
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               evidence in the record under no. 15 above, controverting evidence cited in support of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               Falls Township’s motion, under Rule 1035.3?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           18. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under its order and decision docketed May
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               23, 2022 dismissing Count ITI where, on the fulsome record, there is no controlling law
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               in this Commonwealth from which the trier of fact could find plaintiff has not made
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               out a justiciable claim against Falls Township?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           19. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to hold plaintiffs wrongful
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                               discharge claim bottomed upon Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               articulated under nos. 1 and 2 above, was prima facie unlawful under controlling law
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               to give rise to a violation of a clear public policy allowing plaintiff redress?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           20. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion when it refused to find plaintiff had cited
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               evidence in the record under no. 19 above, controverting the evidence cited it support
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               of Falls Township’s motion, under Rule 1035.3?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           21. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under its order and decision docketed May
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               23, 2022 where the fulsome record demonstrates no evidence under Rule 1035.2 upon
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              which the trier of fact could find Count III fails to state a justiciable claim for a violation
                                                                                                                                                                                                                              of a clear public policy allowing plaintiff redress?

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           22. Did the Court err and/or abuse its discretion under its order and decision docketed May
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               23, 2022 dismissing Count I, II and III where Falls Township’s own record presents
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               genuine issues of material fact under Rules 1035.2 controverting the facts proffered in
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               defense of plaintiffs claims.
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. -                      2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 6
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                IV.         DISCUSSION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      For ease of discussion, this Court will consolidate and address Appellant’s arguments

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            that this Court erred in dismissing Appellant’s claims under Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Constitution first, followed by the application of the Pennsylvania Political Subdivisions Tort

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Claims Act (“PSTCA”), 42 P.S. § 8501 et seq. and Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (“PERA”), 43 P.S. § 1101.101 et seg. to Appellant’s common law claims.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      A.    Standard of Review

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Pennsylvania law provides that summary judgment may be granted only in those cases in

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           which the record clearly shows that no genuine issues of material fact exist and that the moving

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.    McDonald v. Whitewater Challenge, 116 A.3d

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           99, 104-05 (Pa. Super. 2013) (Charlie v. Erie Ins. Exchange, 100 A.2d 244, 250 (Pa. Super. 2014)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           The moving party has the burden of proving that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Id.
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      In determining whether to grant summary judgment, the trial court must view the record in

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and must resolve all doubts as to the existence of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           a genuine issue of material fact against the moving party. Id. Thus, summary judgment is proper

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           only when the uncontroverted allegations in the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           admissions of record, and submitted affidavits demonstrate that no genuine issue of material fact

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           exists, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.    Id.   Only when the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           facts are so clear that reasonable minds cannot differ, may a trial court properly enter summary

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           judgment.       Id.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      On appeal from a grant of summary judgment, appellate courts examine the record in the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Phillips v. Lock, 86 A.3d 906, 912 (Pa. Super. 2014)
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (citing Hogg Constr., Inc. v. Yorktowne Med. Ctr., L.P., 78 A.3d 1152, 1154 (Pa. Super. 2013)).
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. ,                    2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 7
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                             With regard to questions of law, an appellate court's scope of review is plenary.             Id.   However,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            appellate courts will reverse a trial court’s grant of summary judgment only upon a showing
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        of
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            clear error of law or abuse of discretion. Id. “An abuse of discretion requires proof of more
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          than
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            a mere error in judgment, but rather evidence that the law was misapplied or overridden,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     or that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            the judgment was manifestly unreasonable or based on bias, ill will, prejudice, or partiality
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          .”
                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Simmons v. Simmons, 723 A.2d 221, 222 (Pa. Super. 1998).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    B.   Application of Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution provides:

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              [t]he people shall be secure in their persons, houses, papers and
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures, and no
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              warrant to search any place or to seize any person or things shall
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              issue without describing them as nearly as may be, nor without
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              probable cause, supported by oat or affirmation subscribed to by the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              affiant.
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           In Skinner v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 489 U.S. 602, 633 (1989), the United States
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Supreme

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Court upheld a regulatory scheme providing for suspicionless urinalysis of railroad employee
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        s
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           following significant train accidents or certain instances of employee misconduct.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Although

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           urinalysis is considered a search for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment of the United
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    States
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Constitution, the United States Supreme Court reasoned that railroad employees’ privacy
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   interests

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           are   outweighed     by   the   government’s   interest   in protecting   the   public’s   safety,    and   that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           suspicionless urinalysis was not an unreasonable search in that context.         Id. at 626-27, 633.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   The Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has explicitly stated that, “provisions of our state

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Constitution [sometimes] provide individuals with greater protections than those they
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 would

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           receive under similar provisions of the Federal Constitution [and] Article I, Section 8,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    has been
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           found in particular cases to embody a strong notion of privacy, which is greater than that
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Fourth Amendment.”        Jones v. City of Philadelphia, 890 A.2d 1188, 1198 (Pa. Commw.                2006)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                7
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. -                  2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 8
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            (citations omitted).   However, “the right to privacy under Pennsylvania law, although extensive,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            is not unlimited” and “the constitutional legitimacy of an expectation of privacy is not dependent

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            on the subjective intent of the individual asserting the right but on whether the expectation is

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           reasonable in light of all the surrounding circumstances.".           Commonwealth v. Crouse, 729 A.2d

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           588, 595 (Pa. Super. 1999).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has stated that “this [right to privacy] alone ‘does not

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           command      a   reflexive   finding    in   favor   of   any   new   right   or   interpretation   asserted.’”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Commonwealth v. Smith, 836 A.2d 5, 15 (Pa. 2003) (quoting Commonwealth v. Cleckley, 738

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           A.2d 427, 431 (Pa. 1999)).        The Court further emphasized that “we have not hesitated to follow

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           the prevailing Fourth Amendment standard in appropriate instances.”                   Smith, 836 A.2d at 15

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (citing Cleckley, 738 A.2d at 431-32).           In other words, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           instructed that “[courts] are to construe the Pennsylvania Constitution as providing greater rights
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           to its citizens than the federal constitution ‘only where there is a compelling reason to do so.””

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Crouse, 729 A.2d at 596 (quoting Commonwealth v. Gray, 503 A.2d 921, 926 (Pa. 1985)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    As the United States Supreme Court held in Skinner,           a government employer's collection

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           and testing of urine similarly constitutes a "search"            for purposes      of Article   1, § 8 of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Pennsylvania Constitution.        Metz v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 177 A.3d 384, 392 (Pa. Commw.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2018).   This rule applies equally to “government employers who have a paramount interest in

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           assuring that employees in safety-sensitive jobs are free from the effects of drugs while performing

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           their duties and whose employees have a lower expectation of privacy with regard to intoxication.”

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Id. Thus, public employers generally must demonstrate reasonable suspicion to test the urine of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           their employees.    Id. at 392.    However, a party may waive constitutional rights designed for his
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.*                     2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 9
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           benefit. Tyler v. King, 496 A.2d 16, 24 (Pa. Super. 1985) (citing Kardibin v. Associated Hardware,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           426 A.2d 649, 656-57 (Pa. Super. 1981)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Here, Appellant contends that Appellee violated his Constitutional Right to privacy —

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           specifically Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania                 Constitution — when          Appellee     requested that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellant submit to a drug test on May 29, 2019. However, Appellant’s argument fails for several

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           reasons.    First, and most explicitly, Appellee’s CBA, which is discussed in more detail in Section

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           IV(D) below, provided for random drug testing.                   Appellant admitted that he was aware of this

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           policy.”    Thus, Appellant consented to random drug testing during the scope of his employment

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           with Appellee and Appellee’s reasons for testing Appellant and the timing thereof are irrelevant

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           as Appellee could have requested a random drug test from Appellant at any time.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Moreover, Appellant concedes that he failed to cite any authority for the proposition that

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           public employers’       policies providing for suspicionless urinalysis of government employees in
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           safety-sensitive roles violates Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution. Notes of Testimony

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (“N.T.”) Nov. 3, 2021 at 28:8-25 — 29:1-7. The Metz case is distinguishable from the instant case

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           because there was no random drug testing provision in the public-school teachers’ collective

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           bargaining agreement.          Moreover, the Pennsylvania Commonwealth                     Court applied the United

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           States Supreme Court’s reasoning in Skinner and found that reasonable suspicion is all that is

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           required to urine test public employees in safety sensitive roles, including the operation of heavy

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           machinery.     Metz, 177 A.3d at 392.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           ? Under the Nanty-Glo rule, the party moving for summary judgment       may not rely upon its own testimony or affidavits,
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           or those of its witnesses, to establish the nonexistence of genuine issues of material fact, since the credibility of those
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           submissions is reserved for the fact-finder. HSBC Bank, N.A., v. Donaghy, 101 A.3d 129, 134 n.10 (Pa. Super. 2014).
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           However, Nanty-Glo "does not preclude the grant of summary judgment when the moving party relies on the
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           testimonial evidence of an adverse party." Id. Here, Appellant admitted that he and other employees were subject to
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           random drug testing under the CBA and that he never submitted to the drug test that he was ordered to take on May
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           29, 2019. Carr Deposition Testimony (“D.T.”) Jan. 29, 2021 at 27: 17-24 — 28:1-3; 33:11-20; 56:17-24 — 59:1; 130:13-
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           20. Thus, Appellant’s argument that the Court erred in considering Appellant’s own testimony against him with
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           respect to Count I is unavailing.
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents. -                     2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 10
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Pursuant to Crouse, Appellant entirely failed to articulate a compelling reason for the Court

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            to construe the Pennsylvania Constitution as affording greater rights to its citizens than the rights

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            provided by the Fourth Amendment                of the United States Constitution with respect to public

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            employers’ random drug testing policies for public employees in safety sensitive roles. N.T. Nov.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            3, 2021 at 28:8-25, 29:1-7; Skinner, 489 U.S. at 626-27; Crouse, 729 A.2d at 596.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Moreover, in the case at bar, there was no search or seizure for the purposes of the Fourth

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Amendment of the United States Constitution or Article I, § 8 of the Pennsylvania Constitution

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            because Appellee never collected or analyzed Appellant’s urine on May 29, 2019, or at any time

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            prior to Appellant’s termination on June 12, 2019.              Carr D.T. Jan. 29, 2021 at 56:17-19.            Thus, it

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            is respectfully submitted that the undersigned properly granted Appellee’s Renewed Motion for

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            Summary Judgment as to Count I of Appellant’s Complaint.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     C.    Application of the PSTCA to Appellant’s Common Law Invasion of Privacy Claim
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     Count II of Appellant’s Complaint fails as a matter of law because the PSTCA provides

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellee with immunity from tort claims apart from a few exceptions which are enumerated in the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                            statute. See 42 P.S. § 8501 et seg. The PSTCA states that “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           subchapter, no local agency shall be liable for any damages on account of any injury to a person

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           or property caused by an act of the local agency or an employee thereof or any other person.”                          42

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Pa.C.S.A. § 8541.       This section goes beyond merely clothing local governments with an immunity

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           defense subject to waiver.         City of Philadelphia v. Middleton, 492 A.2d 763, 766 (Pa. Commw.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           3 Appellant argues that with respect to each of the Counts in his Complaint, “there is no controlling law in this
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Commonwealth from which the trier of fact could find plaintiff has not made out a justiciable claim” against Falls
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Township. As an initial matter, whether there is legal precedent on point is a question of law and not one of fact.
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Additionally, in reviewing a motion for summary judgment, the court is not required to let claims go forward for
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           which there is no legal support. See Rock v. Meakem, 61 A.3d 239, 255, 263 (Pa. Super. 2013) (finding summary
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           judgment was properly entered on claims for which plaintiff failed to cite any legal authority). Thus, it is respectfully
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           submitted that the Court properly granted Appellee’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment as Appellant failed to
                                                                                                                                                                                                                           articulate sufficient legal support for his claims.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      10
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents."                  2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 11
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1985).    It plainly    forbids any   damage    recoveries   against political subdivisions   outside   the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           parameters of the exceptions enumerated in Section 8542 of the Code.                Id.   Because of the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           legislature’s   clear   intent to insulate   local governments    from   exposure   to tort liability, the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           exceptions to immunity are to be strictly construed.         Lockwood v. City of Pittsburgh, 751 A.2d

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1136, 1139 (Pa. 2000).        Common    law invasion of privacy claims are not included among the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           enumerated exceptions to Appellee’s immunity under the PSTCA, and thus, Appellant is barred

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           from pursuing Count II as a matter of law.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Even if Appellant’s common law invasion of privacy claim fell into one of the enumerated

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           exceptions to the PSTCA, Count II fails as a matter of law.         To state a claim for an invasion of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           privacy at common        law, “plaintiffs must aver that there was an intentional intrusion on the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           seclusion of the plaintiff's private concerns which was substantial and highly offensive to a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           reasonable person and sufficient facts to establish that the information disclosed would have
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           caused mental suffering, shame or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.”           Pro Golf

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Mfg., Inc. v. Tribune Review Newspaper Co., 809 A.2d 243, 247 (Pa. 2002).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    Here, Appellant does not allege nor suggest that Appellee’s purported invasion of his

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           privacy subjected him to personal embarrassment, humiliation, or public scorn because his private

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           information was disclosed improperly.          The only “invasion” if any, was based on Appellee’s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           written request that Appellant take a drug test on May 29, 2019. Appellant alleges that Appellee’s

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           request was made publicly, as Appellant’s supervisor handed him an envelope in the lunchroom

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           in front of other employees.      N.T. Nov. 3, 2021 at 76:10-14.     However, per the Falls Township

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Drug and Alcohol Testing Policy, all of Appellee’s employees who operate heavy or dangerous

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           equipment are subject to random drug testing, and Appellee’s request that Appellant take a drug
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           test, even if made publicly, does not constitute an embarrassing or private fact. Carr D.T. Jan. 29,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               11
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                        2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 12
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2021 at 129:7-24 — 130:1-20. Additionally, Appellant never complied with Appellee's request and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           no private information regarding Appellant was ever obtained or disclosed.           Carr D.T. Jan. 29,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           2021 at 27:17-24 — 28:1-3; 56:17-24 — 59:1.         Therefore, Count II is deficient as a matter of law,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           and it is respectfully submitted that this Court properly granted Appellee’s Renewed Motion for

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Summary Judgment as to that Count.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      D.    Application of the PERA and the PSTCA to Appellant’s Wrongful Discharge Claim

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      PERA establishes public employees’ rights to organize, to collectively bargain through

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           selected representatives,      and to adopt collective bargaining     agreements   governing   employee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           conduct.        43 P.S. § 1101.101   ef seg.   Pennsylvania case law bars Appellant from bringing a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           wrongful termination claim by nature of Appellant’s participation in the CBA, which is authorized

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           by PERA.         Cairns v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 538 A.2d 659, 660-61

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           (Pa. Commw.          1988) (“because the wrongful    discharge action in Pennsylvania was judicially
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           created to protect otherwise unprotected employees from indiscriminate discharge and to provide

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           unorganized workers a legal redress against improper actions by their employers . . . wrongful

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           discharge [claims are] available only when the employment relationship is at will.)

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Moreover, wrongful discharge is a tort claim, which like common law invasion of privacy,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           is not included in the enumerated exceptions to immunity granted to townships by the PSTCA.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           McNichols v. Department of Transportation, 804 A.2d 1264, 1267 (Pa. Commw.                2002); See 42

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Pa.C.S.A. § 8542(b)(1-9).       Therefore, Appellant’s wrongful discharge claim is barred as a matter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           of Pennsylvania law.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      Even if Appellant’s claim were not barred by Appellant’s participation in the CBA and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellee’s immunity under the PSTCA, Appellant has not articulated a basis for finding that he
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           was wrongfully terminated under Pennsylvania law.          The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has noted

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                12
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.’                 2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 13
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           that “[a]n employee will be entitled to bring a cause of action for a termination of that relationship

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           only in the most limited circumstances where the termination implicates a clear mandate of public

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           policy in this Commonwealth.”     McLaughlin v. Gastrointestinal Specialists, Inc., 750 A.2d 283,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           314 (Pa. 2000).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  As a general rule, public policy is to be determined by laws and legal precedents and not

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           from the supposed public interest.    Id. at 315-16 (citations omitted).    In determining whether a

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           public policy exists and whether it has been violated by an employer’s            conduct, courts are

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           instructed to “examin[e]    the precedent   within    Pennsylvania,   looking   to the   [Pennsylvania]

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Constitution, court decisions and statutes promulgated by [the Pennsylvania] legislature.”           Id.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           “While [courts are] . . . free to find that a particular practice violates an existing public policy,

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           [courts are] relatively confined in [their] ability to announce new public policy.”         Donahue v.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Federal Express Corp., 753 A.2d 238, 244 (Pa. Super. 2000) (citing Shick v. Shirey, 716 A.2d
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           1231, 1237 (Pa. 1998)).

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  Despite numerous invitations from the Court, Appellant failed to articulate specific public

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           policies that were violated by Appellee’s testing requirements.       N.T. Nov. 3, 2021 at 36:7-25 —

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           48:1-21; 51:19-25 — 53:1-11.     In light of the lack of federal and state precedent on point, and

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellant’s inability to describe the particular public policy implicated by Appellee’s conduct, it

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           is respectfully submitted that the Court properly declined to announce and apply a new public

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           policy to Appellant’s claims.   Therefore, Appellant’s third and final claim against Appellee is

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           insufficient as a matter of law, and it is respectfully submitted that the Court properly granted

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellee’s Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment with respect to same.
E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            13
the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania: Case Records of the Appellate and Trial Courts that require filing confidential information and documents differently than non-confidential information and documents.                  2019-06230-0058 OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT FILED. ORDER ENTERED AS FOLLOWS., Page 14
                                                                                                                 $0.00. The filer certifies that this filing complies with the provisions of the Public Access Policy of

                                                                                                                                                                                                                              V.       CONCLUSION

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that that this Court’s Decision and Order entered

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           on May 23, 2022 addressed each of the issues raised in this Appeal and that the Court did not err

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           in in its findings.   Thus,   it is respectfully    suggested   that the undersigned   properly   granted

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           Appellee’s Renewed Motion for Summary              Judgment as to each of Appellant’s claims and the

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           instant Appeal should be denied.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                           DATE
                                                                                                                                                                                                                               e/te/22                                               ROBERT O.        BALDI, J.
Case# 2019-06230-58 - JUDGE:35 Received at County of Bucks Prothonotary on 08/16/2022 10:14 AM, Fee

E-Filed by: Elizabeth Schecter

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                14