Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-512 (2026)

Disqualification — Satisfaction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. “Week of Unemployment” Defined. A “week of unemployment” as used in this section and § 11-10-519 means a week during which, except for a disqualification, an individual would be eligible for benefits.
  2. “Week of Disqualification” Defined. A “week of disqualification” as used in this section and § 11-10-519(a)(2) shall be satisfied by a week of unemployment as defined in this section or by a week of employment during which the employee has earnings in an amount equal to his or her weekly benefit amount.

History. Acts 1941, No. 391, § 5; 1949, No. 155, § 5; 1953, No. 162, § 3; 1955, No. 395, § 20; 1971, No. 35, § 9; A.S.A. 1947, § 81-1106; Acts 2001, No. 1367, § 5; 2019, No. 453, § 3.

Amendments. The 2019 amendment, in (a), substituted “this section and § 11-10-519” for “this section and §§ 11-10-514, 11-10-515, 11-10-517, and 11-10-519”; substituted “as used in this section” for “under §§ 11-10-514(a), 11-10-515” in (b); and deleted former (b)(2).

Effective Dates. Acts 2019, No. 453, § 11: Oct. 1, 2019.

Case Notes

In General.

Sections 11-10-512 — 11-10-519 are mutually exclusive. Little Rock Furn. Mfg. Co. v. Commissioner of Labor, 227 Ark. 288, 298 S.W.2d 56 (1957).

Construction.

It must be remembered in interpreting and applying this section that the basic design of this chapter is to protect the employee from the economic consequences of unemployment through no fault of the employee; and, to that end, this chapter should be liberally construed. Whitlow v. American Greetings Co., 268 Ark. 1122, 599 S.W.2d 410 (Ct. App. 1980).

Cited: Cash v. Rocket Mfg. Co., 223 Ark. 561, 267 S.W.2d 318 (1954); Garrett v. Cline, 257 Ark. 829, 520 S.W.2d 281 (1975); Harris v. Daniels, 263 Ark. 897, 567 S.W.2d 954 (1978); Stagecoach Motel v. Krause, 267 Ark. 1093, 593 S.W.2d 495 (Ct. App. 1980); Jordan v. Dukes, 269 Ark. 581, 600 S.W.2d 21 (Ct. App. 1980); Stewart v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 809, 601 S.W.2d 245 (Ct. App. 1980); Cross v. Daniels, 271 Ark. 201, 607 S.W.2d 680 (1980); Hodnett v. Daniels, 271 Ark. 479, 609 S.W.2d 122 (1980); Ireland v. Daniels, 2 Ark. App. 44, 616 S.W.2d 33 (1981); Jeffreys v. Everett, 6 Ark. App. 265, 640 S.W.2d 465 (1982); Ramsey v. Everett, 7 Ark. App. 120, 644 S.W.2d 621 (1983); Jones v. Director of Labor, 8 Ark. App. 234, 650 S.W.2d 601 (1983); Feagin v. Everett, 9 Ark. App. 59, 652 S.W.2d 839 (1983); Linscott v. Director of Labor, 9 Ark. App. 103, 653 S.W.2d 150 (1983); Stiles v. Hopkins, 282 Ark. 207, 666 S.W.2d 703 (1984); Reynolds Metals Co. v. Couch, 12 Ark. App. 267, 675 S.W.2d 838 (1984); Helena-West Helena Sch. Dist. v. Stiles, 15 Ark. App. 30, 688 S.W.2d 326 (1985); Shipley Baking Co. v. Stiles, 17 Ark. App. 72, 703 S.W.2d 465 (1986); Walker v. Director, Emp. Sec. Dep't., 40 Ark. App. 12, 840 S.W.2d 200 (1992).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1992–2013 · leading case: Bradford v. Dir., Emp. Sec. Dep't, 128 S.W.3d 20 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003).
Bradford v. Dir., Emp. Sec. Dep't, 128 S.W.3d 20 (Ark. Ct. App. 2003). · cites it 4× “In short, employees will be penalized for giving notice. This does not comport with the purpose of our unemployment laws to protect employees from economic hardship caused by involuntary loss of employment.”
Clark v. Dir., Emp. Sec. Dep't, 944 S.W.2d 862 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). “(3) Except as otherwise provided in this section, disqualification for misconduct shall be for eight (8) weeks of unemployment as defined in § 11-10-512. (b) If he is discharged from his last work for misconduct in connection with the work on account of dishonesty, .”
Nelson v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 533 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). “The previous version of section 11-10-515(a)(1)(B) provided that a disqualification under section 11-10- 515(a)(1)(A) “shall be for eight (8) weeks of unemployment as defined in § 11-10-512.” The amended version of the statute became effective on July 26, 2011, and was therefore…”
Nelson v. Dir., 2013 Ark. App. 533 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). “The previous version of section 11-10-515(a)(1)(B) provided that a disqualification under section 11-10- 515(a)(1)(A) “shall be for eight (8) weeks of unemployment as defined in § 11-10-512.” The amended version of the statute became effective on July 26, 2011, and was therefore…”
Walker v. Dir., Emp. Sec. Dep't, 840 S.W.2d 200 (Ark. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “That decision was appealed to the Appeal Tribunal which held appellant was discharged for misconduct under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-514 (Supp. 1991) and that he was disqualified for benefits “for eight (8) weeks of unemployment, as defined in Ark.”
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.