BORSE v. PIECE GOODS SHOP, INC. Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: An employee was fired for refusing a drug test. The court predicted Pennsylvania would recognize a wrongful discharge claim if the employer’s testing program constituted a tortious invasion of privacy, remanding the case for the employee to provide more facts.
Legal Significance: This case establishes that discharging an at-will employee for refusing a drug test can violate public policy if the testing program itself constitutes a substantial and highly offensive invasion of privacy under common law tort principles.
BORSE v. PIECE GOODS SHOP, INC. Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Plaintiff Sarah Borse, an at-will employee for nearly fifteen years at Piece Goods Shop, Inc. (“the Shop”), was terminated after she refused to consent to a new company policy. The policy required employees to agree to urinalysis screening for drug use and to searches of their personal property located on the Shop’s premises. Borse refused to sign the consent form, asserting that the policy violated her constitutional rights to privacy and freedom from unreasonable searches. After her repeated refusals, the Shop terminated her employment. Borse filed a wrongful discharge suit in federal court, alleging her termination violated a public policy precluding employers from infringing on employee privacy rights. The district court, exercising diversity jurisdiction, dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, finding no such public policy exception to Pennsylvania’s at-will employment doctrine. Borse appealed to the Third Circuit.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Pennsylvania law, does discharging an at-will employee for refusing to consent to a drug testing and property search program state a claim for wrongful discharge if the program itself would constitute a tortious invasion of privacy?
Yes. The court vacated the district court’s dismissal and remanded. A discharge Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliq
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Under Pennsylvania law, does discharging an at-will employee for refusing to consent to a drug testing and property search program state a claim for wrongful discharge if the program itself would constitute a tortious invasion of privacy?
Conclusion
This decision provides a pathway for challenging private-sector drug testing under the Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
Legal Rule
A discharge of an at-will employee may violate a clear mandate of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nul
Legal Analysis
Sitting in diversity, the Third Circuit predicted how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia d
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Firing an at-will employee for refusing a drug test can be