Ark. Code Ann. § 11-10-519 (2026)
Disqualification — Penalty for false statement or misrepresentation
-
If so found by the Director of the Division of Workforce Services, an individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
-
- If he or she willfully makes a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact or willfully fails to disclose a material fact in filing an initial claim or a claim renewal, he or she shall be disqualified from the effective date of the disqualification until he or she has twenty (20) weeks of employment in each of which he or she has earned wages equal to at least his or her weekly benefit amount.
-
- In addition to the twenty-week disqualification in subdivision (a)(1)(A) of this section, any weekly benefits payable subsequent to the date of delivery or mailing of the determination shall be terminated.
- The termination shall apply only to benefits payable within the benefit year of the claim with respect to which the claimant willfully made a false statement or misrepresentation;
-
- For any continued week claimed with respect to which the employee has willfully made a false statement or misrepresentation of a material fact or willfully fails to disclose a material fact in obtaining or attempting to obtain any benefits, and for an additional thirteen (13) weeks of unemployment, as defined in § 11-10-512, and which shall commence with Sunday of the first week with respect to which a claim is filed commencing with the week of delivery or mailing of the determination of disqualification under this section.
-
- In addition to the thirteen (13) weeks of disqualification, a disqualification of three (3) weeks shall be imposed for each week of failure or falsification.
-
- Any weekly benefits payable subsequent to the date of delivery or mailing of the determination shall be terminated.
- The termination shall apply only to benefits payable within the benefit year of the claim with respect to which the claimant willfully made a false statement or misrepresentation; and
-
- The disqualification shall not be applied after five (5) years have elapsed from the date of delivery or mailing of the determination of disqualification under this section.
-
- A person who is disqualified under this section shall be liable for repayment of any benefits determined to have been collected fraudulently, as well as any other penalties, interest, and costs assessed as a result of the fraudulent activity.
- Until the liabilities have been repaid, the person shall forfeit any right to receive benefits under this chapter.
-
- Upon request of the Legislative Council, the Division of Workforce Services shall provide reports regarding unemployment insurance claim fraud and its efforts to prevent the fraud.
History. Acts 1941, No. 391, § 5; 1949, No. 155, § 5; 1955, No. 395, § 19; 1963, No. 93, § 6; 1971, No. 35, § 9; 1983, No. 482, § 21; A.S.A. 1947, § 81-1106; Acts 2001, No. 1367, § 7; 2003, No. 1223, § 7; 2013, No. 1242, § 1; 2019, No. 453, § 8; 2019, No. 910, §§ 247, 248.
Amendments. The 2013 amendment substituted “claim renewal, he or she shall” for “claim renewal. He or she shall” in (a)(1); redesignated former (2)(B) as present (a)(2)(B)(i) and (a)(2)(B)(ii); in (a)(2)(B)(ii)( a ), inserted “of” following “mailing” and substituted “terminated” for “reduced fifty percent (50%) rounded to the next lower dollar, and the remainder of maximum benefits shall be reduced accordingly”; substituted “termination” for “reduction” in (a)(2)(B)(ii)( b ); in (a)(3), substituted “two and one half (2½)” for “five (5)” and inserted “of” following “mailing”; and added (b).
The 2019 amendment by No. 453 redesignated (a)(1) as (a)(1)(A); in (a)(1)(A), substituted “effective date of the disqualification” for “date of filing the claim” and substituted “twenty (20) weeks” for “ten (10) weeks”; added (a)(1)(B); redesignated (a)(3) as (a)(3)(A); in (a)(3)(A), substituted “five (5) years” for “two and one-half (2½) years”, and deleted “but all overpayments established by the determination of disqualification shall be collected as otherwise provided by this chapter” from the end; and added (a)(3)(B).
The 2019 amendment by No. 910 substituted “Director of the Division of Workforce Services” for “Director of the Department of Workforce Services” in the introductory language of (a); and substituted “Division of Workforce Services” for “Department of Workforce Services” in (b).
Effective Dates. Acts 2019, No. 453, § 11: Oct. 1, 2019.
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Labor Law, Employment Security Law, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 424.
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).
This section and § 11-10-532 required the recipient to repay all benefits received during the period she was disqualified for committing fraud, not just the amount of overpayment after calculating unreported income. Hunt v. Director, Emp. Sec. Dep't, 57 Ark. App. 152, 942 S.W.2d 873 (1997).
Evidence.
Evidence sufficient to find that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because he made a false statement of material fact when filing claim. Eden v. Daniels, 269 Ark. 690, 600 S.W.2d 416 (Ct. App. 1980).
Because the Board of Review found that the worker was aware that he had not been laid off due to a lack of work and that he misrepresented the circumstances of his separation when filing his initial claim for benefits, there was substantial evidence to support the finding that he was disqualified. Holmes v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 337, 463 S.W.3d 744 (2015).
Board of Review's decision disqualifying a former employee from receiving unemployment benefits was supported by substantial evidence where a wage audit revealed that she had earned $9.60 during one week in the claim period, she reported no earnings for that week, she was aware that she worked for a short period of time that week and was given information about reporting those wages, and there was no evidence that she was unaware of the requirement to report her earnings. Rivera v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs., 2018 Ark. App. 436, 560 S.W.3d 797 (2018).
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).