An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
1. For the week in which the individual has left work voluntarily without good cause in connection with the employment, and in addition to the waiting week, for the duration of the individual's unemployment and until the individual has earned wages in an amount equivalent to five times the individual's weekly benefit amount otherwise payable. If a person leaves because of transportation difficulties, the individual shall be disqualified unless the individual can show the individual's travel requirements are in excess of the normal practice in the individual's occupation and past practice or that the individual has compelling personal circumstances requiring the individual's leaving. Compelling personal circumstances shall include but are not limited to a showing of any of the following:
(a) Over thirty miles distance from the individual's home to work.
(b) More than one and one-half hours to reach work.
(c) A spouse or unemancipated minor leaving work to accompany the other spouse or a parent who is a member of the armed services and who is transferred to another locality as a result of official orders.
2. For the week in which the individual has been discharged for wilful or negligent misconduct connected with the employment, and in addition to the waiting week, for the duration of the individual's unemployment and until the individual has earned wages in an amount equivalent to five times the individual's weekly benefit amount otherwise payable.
3. For any week with respect to which or a part of which the individual has received or is seeking unemployment benefits under an unemployment compensation law of another state or of the United States, but if the appropriate agency of the other state or of the United States finally determines that the individual is not entitled to unemployment benefits, the ineligibility shall not apply.
4. For the week in which the individual becomes unemployed and for not more than the following three weeks, if the individual's unemployment is due solely to a customary suspension of all operations, except maintenance work, at the factory, plant or other premises at which the individual was last employed, which will not occur more than once in a calendar year and will not exceed four consecutive weeks' duration, and the employment will again be available to the individual on resumption of operations. For the purposes of this paragraph:
(a) "Customary suspension" means a suspension that has occurred for the same or similar reasons in each of three consecutive years or more, including the year in question, regardless of whether the suspension in any previous year would have satisfied the requirements of this paragraph. A suspension provided for by an agreement to which the employer is a party shall be considered customary unless the agreement specifies the exact time, duration, type and circumstances of the suspension. Any suspension whose details are determined by the employer shall be considered customary, regardless of the employer's ultimate reason for imposing it, as long as the employer's reason or reasons are the same or similar over the necessary period.
(b) "Factory, plant or other premises" means any location or premises or portion of locations or premises of the employer where the work or operations are separate and distinct from those at other locations or premises or portions of locations or premises, regardless of geographic proximity or functional, geographic or administrative integration of the work or operations.
(c) "Maintenance work" has its usual meaning and includes any administrative, executive, clerical or supervisory work or any other work necessary to keep the factory, plant or other premises in a position to resume full operations promptly at the end of the suspension or necessary to pay, supervise or otherwise support individuals performing such work.
5. For any week in which the individual is incarcerated.
Notes of Decisions
Weller v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 860 P.2d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
· cites it 6× “") § 23-775. The Appeals Board held that the employee had committed misconduct by violating a known, uniformly enforced and reasonable rule imposed by his employer.”
Munguia v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 765 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
· cites it 6× “A.R.S. § 23-775(1) provides: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 1.”
Prebula v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 672 P.2d 978 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
· cites it 4× “Appellant was denied unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-775, which provides in pertinent part: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: * sj: sjs sf: s}: * 2.”
Sondra Irving v. Emp. Appeal Bd., 883 N.W.2d 179 (Iowa 2016).
“, Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 23-775 (2) (2016) (disqualifying employees from benefits for “willful or negligent misconduct”) (emphasis added)); Minn.”
Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Magma Copper Co., 366 P.2d 84 (Ariz. 1961).
· cites it 4× “There is no express or implied disqualification in A.R.S. §§ 23-775 to 23-777 for receipt of income from employer pension plans.”
Valley Vendors, Inc. v. Jamieson, 630 P.2d 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 23-775 states in part: Disqualification from benefits An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 2.”
Vickers v. W. Elec. Co., 339 P.2d 1033 (Ariz. 1959).
· cites it 7× “” This decision, apparently was based on A.R.S. § 23-775. Both appellee and claimants made timely appeals from the decision of the special deputy to the entire Employment Security Commission of Arizona, which will be herein referred to as the Commission.”
Castaneda v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 815 P.2d 418 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1991).
· cites it 4× “Castaneda was discharged for misconduct in connection with his employment he is disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-775. Because we do not agree that Mr.”
Gardiner v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 623 P.2d 33 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1980).
· cites it 2× “A.R.S. § 23-775 provides in part that: *605 An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: ♦ * * * * * 2.”
Rios Moreno v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 873 P.2d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
· cites it 3× “”) section 23-775 (Supp.1993). The DES determination rested on a finding that appellant, a nonunion employee, should have known about a rule expressed only in a union contract.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-775(1) — 12 cases
Munguia v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 765 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“A.R.S. § 23-775(1) provides: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 1.”
Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Magma Copper Co., 366 P.2d 84 (Ariz. 1961).
“There is no express or implied disqualification in A.R.S. §§ 23-775 to 23-777 for receipt of income from employer pension plans.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-775(2) — 13 cases
Weller v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 860 P.2d 487 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1993).
“") § 23-775. The Appeals Board held that the employee had committed misconduct by violating a known, uniformly enforced and reasonable rule imposed by his employer.”
Prebula v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 672 P.2d 978 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1983).
“Appellant was denied unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-775, which provides in pertinent part: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: * sj: sjs sf: s}: * 2.”
Valley Vendors, Inc. v. Jamieson, 630 P.2d 61 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1981).
“A.R.S. § 23-775 states in part: Disqualification from benefits An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 2.”
Rios Moreno v. Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec., 873 P.2d 703 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1994).
“”) section 23-775 (Supp.1993). The DES determination rested on a finding that appellant, a nonunion employee, should have known about a rule expressed only in a union contract.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-775(4) — 1 case
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-775(l) — 2 cases
Munguia v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 765 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).
“A.R.S. § 23-775(1) provides: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: 1.”
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.