Arizona Revised Statutes

Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-776 (2026)

Disqualification from benefits for failure to accept suitable work or actively seek work; exceptions

✓ current as of May 2026

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

A. An individual shall be disqualified for benefits if the department finds the individual has failed without cause either to apply for available, suitable work, when so directed by the employment office or the department, to actively engage in seeking work, to accept suitable work when offered or to return to the individual's customary self-employment when so directed by the department. The disqualification shall begin with the week in which the failure occurred and shall continue for the duration of the individual's unemployment and until the individual has earned wages in an amount equivalent to eight times the individual's weekly benefit amount otherwise payable.

B. In determining whether or not work is suitable for an individual:

1. During the first four weeks of a benefit period, the department shall consider the degree of risk involved to the individual's health, safety and morals, the individual's physical fitness and prior training, the individual's experience and prior earnings, the individual's length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in the individual's customary occupation and the distance of the available work from the individual's residence.

2. After the first four weeks of a benefit period, the department shall consider any employment offer that pays one hundred twenty percent of the individual's weekly benefit amount to be suitable work.

C. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, work shall not be deemed suitable and benefits shall not be denied under this chapter to an otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new work under any of the following conditions:

1. The position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout or other labor dispute.

2. The wages, hours or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality.

3. As a condition of being employed the individual would be required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining a bona fide labor organization.

D. An individual is considered to have refused an offer of suitable work under subsection A of this section if an offer of work is withdrawn by an employer after an individual either:

1. Tests positive for drugs after a drug test given pursuant to chapter 2, article 14 of this title by or on behalf of a prospective employer as a condition of an offer of employment.

2. Refuses, without good cause, to submit to a drug test that is required by a prospective employer as a condition of an offer of employment.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases, 1962–1988 · leading case: Munguia v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 765 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Munguia v. Dep't of Econ. Sec., 765 P.2d 559 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 7× “See A.R.S. § 23-776. 7 (d) Refusal of Suitable Work.”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 607 P.2d 6 (Ariz. 1980). · cites it 6× “RIDDLES is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for the period set out in A.R.S. § 23-776 A.” The Department of Economic Security appealed from the judgment of the trial court.”

Cramer v. Emp. Sec. Com'n of Arizona, 367 P.2d 956 (Ariz. 1962). · cites it 3× “A.R.S. § 23-776, subd. A, provides for disqualification from benefits “if the commission finds he has failed without good cause either to apply for available, suitable work, when so directed by the employment office or the commission, or to accept suitable work when offered him…”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 607 P.2d 10 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 11× “The Department of Economic Security appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court setting aside a decision of the Department which determined that an offer of internal transfer and continued employment made by the Appellee Magma Copper Company to Jimmie Riddles, an unemployment…”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Serv., 560 P.2d 70 (Ariz. 1977). · cites it 3× “This appeal involves A.R.S. § 23-776 of our unemployment compensation statutes which provides that an individual is disqualified for benefits upon rejecting “without cause” an offer of “suitable employment”.”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 581 P.2d 711 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). · cites it 2× “*478 A.R.S. § 23-776(A) provides in part: An' individual shall be disqualified for benefits if the department finds he has failed without good cause .”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-776(A) — 1 case

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 581 P.2d 711 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978). “*478 A.R.S. § 23-776(A) provides in part: An' individual shall be disqualified for benefits if the department finds he has failed without good cause .”

— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 23-776(B) — 2 cases

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 607 P.2d 6 (Ariz. 1980). “RIDDLES is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for the period set out in A.R.S. § 23-776 A.” The Department of Economic Security appealed from the judgment of the trial court.”

Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Magma Copper Co., 607 P.2d 10 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979). “The Department of Economic Security appeals from a judgment of the Superior Court setting aside a decision of the Department which determined that an offer of internal transfer and continued employment made by the Appellee Magma Copper Company to Jimmie Riddles, an unemployment…”

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.