In Rebel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 692 A.2d 304, 306 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) the employer had an express random drug and alcohol testing policy. The case involved a discharged management level employee who refused random drug and alcohol testing and was the only employee in his division (out of approximately 1300) who refused testing. All employees were subject to random testing, a supervisor explained to the employees that they would be subject to disciplinary action for refusing to comply with the policy. The claimant, an electrical engineer, performed duties in connection with a nuclear power plant, and although he argued that he had legal justification for refusing the drug test based upon privacy grounds, the Court held that the Board did not err in rejecting the claimant's good cause arguments and in denying benefits. Moreover, his discharge was not only for refusing the test but also for refusing to follow his supervisor's instructions, and the Court rejected the added claim of disparate treatment as no evidence existed to show that the claimant was treated differently from bargaining unit employees. In analyzing whether, under Section 402(e), an employer's drug testing program was a violation of that claimant's Fourth Amendment rights, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court stated: Upon weighing the employer's interest in the drug testing program against the burden to employees, we conclude that the program is a reasonable one. Appellant had an implied obligation, therefore, to comply. The employer has a strong interest in maintaining a workplace that is free from the influence of drugs. This is true of the entire work site, not just areas that are regarded as highly safety-sensitive. Employees who have consumed drugs can incur reductions in their productivity, reliability, and competency, thereby adversely affecting the employer's interests. In turn, interests of customers can be detrimentally affected as well. There are also overriding concerns of safety and liability. Workplace safety is obviously undermined by employees who are impaired in their physical and mental capacities. Not only are fellow workers endangered, but the public is likewise placed at risk. The avoidance of injury, as well as concern for vicarious liability that can accrue to the employer, are legitimate interests of the employer that must be accorded substantial weight. Rebel v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 555 Pa. 114 at 120, 723 A.2d 156 at 159.