Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-771 (2026)

Eligibility for benefits

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AZ-LEGazleg.gov (official) JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

23-771. Eligibility for benefits

A. An unemployed individual is eligible to receive benefits with respect to any week only if the department finds that the individual:

1. Has registered for work at and thereafter has continued to report at an employment office in accordance with the regulations prescribed by the department.

2. Has made a claim for benefits in accordance with section 23-772.

3. Is able to work.

4. Except for an individual who is applying for shared work benefits pursuant to article 5.1 of this chapter, is available for work and both of the following apply:

(a) The individual has engaged in a systematic and sustained effort to obtain work during at least four days of the week.

(b) The individual has made at least one job contact per day on four different days of the week.

5. Has been unemployed for a waiting period of one week. A week is not counted as a week of unemployment for the purpose of this paragraph:

(a) Unless it occurs within the benefit year that includes the week with respect to which the individual claims payment of benefits.

(b) Unless the individual was eligible for benefits with respect to the week as provided in this section and sections 23-775, 23-776 and 23-777.

6. Has met one of the following requirements:

(a) Has been paid wages for insured work during the individual's base period equal to at least one and one-half times the wages paid to the individual in the calendar quarter of the individual's base period in which the wages were highest, and the individual has been paid wages for insured work in one calendar quarter of the individual's base period equal to an amount that is equal to at least three hundred ninety times the minimum wage prescribed by section 23-363 that is in effect when the individual files a claim for benefits.

(b) For a benefit year beginning on or after September 2, 1984, has been paid wages for insured work during at least two quarters of the individual's base period and the amount of the wages paid in one quarter would be sufficient to qualify the individual for the maximum weekly benefit amount payable under this chapter and the total of the individual's base-period wages is equal to or greater than the taxable limit as specified in section 23-622, subsection B, paragraphs 1 and 2.

7. Following the beginning date of a benefit year established under this chapter or the unemployment compensation law of any other state and before the effective date of a subsequent benefit year under this chapter, has performed services whether or not in employment as defined in section 23-615 for which wages were payable in an amount equal to or in excess of eight times the weekly benefit amount for which the individual is otherwise qualified under section 23-779. In making a determination under this paragraph, the department shall use information available in its records or require the individual to furnish necessary information within thirty days after the date notice is given that the information is required.

B. If an unemployed individual cannot establish a benefit year as defined in section 23-609 due to receipt during the base period of compensation for a temporary total disability pursuant to chapter 6 of this title, or any similar federal law, the individual's base period shall be the first four of the last five completed calendar quarters immediately preceding the first day of the calendar week in which the disability began. Wages previously used to establish a benefit year may not be reused. This subsection does not apply unless all of the following occur:

1. The individual has filed a claim for benefits not later than the fourth calendar week of unemployment after the end of the period of disability.

2. The claim is filed within two years after the period of disability begins.

3. The individual meets the requirements of subsection A of this section.

4. The individual has attempted to return to the employment where the temporary total disability occurred.

C. If an unemployed individual is a member of the national guard or other reserve component of the United States armed forces, the individual is not considered to be either employed or unavailable for work by reason of the individual's participation in drill, training or other national guard or reserve activity that occurs on not more than one weekend per month or in lieu of a weekend drill or the equivalent.

D. The department shall not disqualify an individual from receiving benefits under this chapter on the basis of the individual's separation from employment if the individual is a victim of domestic violence and leaves employment due to a documented case involving domestic violence pursuant to section 13-3601 or 13-3601.02. Benefits paid to an individual pursuant to this subsection shall not be charged against an employer's account pursuant to section 23-727, subsection G.

E. The department shall not disqualify an individual from receiving benefits under this chapter on the basis of the individual's separation from employment if the individual was terminated from employment for not receiving a COVID-19 vaccine or COVID-19 booster shot required by the employer. Benefits paid to an individual pursuant to this subsection shall not be charged against an employer's account pursuant to section 23-727 if the employer's requirement that employees receive the COVID-19 vaccine or COVID-19 booster shot is required by law.

F. For the purposes of subsection A, paragraph 6 of this section, wages shall be counted as wages for insured work for benefit purposes with respect to any benefit year only if that benefit year begins subsequent to the date on which the employing unit by which those wages were paid has become an employer subject to this chapter.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1959–2024 · leading case: Vickers v. W. Elec. Co., 339 P.2d 1033 (Ariz. 1959).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Vickers v. W. Elec. Co., 339 P.2d 1033 (Ariz. 1959). · cites it 11× “Appellee contended in its appeal that the claimants should have been found ineligible for benefits for the duration of the strike, because claimants had failed to establish they were “available for work” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 23-771. In the alternative, appellee…”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 609 P.2d 1089 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “The payment of benefits to such persons may not be used as a factor in determining their employer's future contribution rate.”

Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Magma Copper Co., 366 P.2d 84 (Ariz. 1961). · cites it 4× “Lugo, were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 23-771 to 23-790 (1956). Presented here is the question whether a worker, forced to retire on pension at age 68 or above at the instance of his employer but according to the provisions of a collective…”

Kane v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 618 P.2d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “The deputy determined that appellant was not eligible for benefits for the summer time period because she was not available for work as required by A.R.S. § 23-771(3). Appellant appealed the deputy’s determination to an appeal tribunal of the Arizona Department of Economic…”

Cramer v. Emp. Sec. Com'n of Arizona, 367 P.2d 956 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 5× “” In at least one jurisdiction the act of registering for work at the unemployment office (see A.R.S. § 23-771, subd. 1) by the claimant is enough to raise a rebuttable presumption of availability.”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Lidback, 546 P.2d 1152 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Consequently) appellee was ineligible for unemployment benefits under A.R.S. § 23-771, and thus received benefits “to which he was not entitled” under A.”

Garrison v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 750 P.2d 1370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 3× “Did appellant receive “reasonable assurance” of reemployment? As context for this issue we first examine the facts in light of another of the employment security statutes, A.R.S. § 23-771(A)(6)(a). That provision establishes a formula for computing financial eligibility for…”

Various & Constr. Unions v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 375 P.2d 380 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 4× “2d 1033 (1959) turned on the matter of ineligibility for benefits under A.R.S. § 23-771 as distinguished from disqualification for benefits under A.”

Dessauer v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 687 P.2d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 10× “60 An award of benefits was not made because the wages paid during the total base period did not equal one and one-half times the wages paid during appellant’s highest quarter, as required by A.R.S. § 23-771. On October 20, 1982, appellant filed a protest.”

Pastore v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 625 P.2d 926 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 23-771, par. 6, conditions the payment of weekly benefits on the payment of designated minimum base pay wages and requires that the benefit year begin only after the employer becomes subject to the Act.”

Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Kosic, 476 P.2d 834 (Ariz. 1970). · cites it 2× “The Employment Security Commission and the Appeal Tribunal both ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits because she was not “available for work” within the meaning of A.R.S. § 23-771. That section provides in part as follows: “An unemployed individual shall be…”

Sw. Teamsters Sec. Fund v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 757 P.2d 1067 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 2× “See A.R.S. § 23-771 to -791; Valley Nat’l Bank, 20 Ariz.”

Show all 24 citing cases →

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-771(3) — 1 case

Kane v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 618 P.2d 637 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980). “The deputy determined that appellant was not eligible for benefits for the summer time period because she was not available for work as required by A.R.S. § 23-771(3). Appellant appealed the deputy’s determination to an appeal tribunal of the Arizona Department of Economic…”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-771(6) — 1 case

Arizona Coll. of Bible, Inc. v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 585 P.2d 237 (Ariz. 1978).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-771(A)(3) — 1 case

Mazza v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 672 P.2d 989 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-771(A)(6) — 1 case

Dessauer v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 687 P.2d 392 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984). “60 An award of benefits was not made because the wages paid during the total base period did not equal one and one-half times the wages paid during appellant’s highest quarter, as required by A.R.S. § 23-771. On October 20, 1982, appellant filed a protest.”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-771(A)(6)(a) — 2 cases

Garrison v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 750 P.2d 1370 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). “Did appellant receive “reasonable assurance” of reemployment? As context for this issue we first examine the facts in light of another of the employment security statutes, A.R.S. § 23-771(A)(6)(a). That provision establishes a formula for computing financial eligibility for…”

Robbins v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 300 P.3d 556 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.