California Codes

Cal. Unemployment Insurance Code § 1256.1 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CA-LEGleginfo.legislature.ca.gov JustiaCode on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a)If the employment of an individual is terminated due to his absence from work for a period in excess of 24 hours because of his incarceration and he is convicted of the offense for which he was incarcerated or of any lesser included offense, he shall be deemed to have left his work voluntarily without good cause for the purposes of Section 1256. A plea or verdict of guilty, or a conviction following a plea of nolo contendere, is deemed to be a conviction within the meaning of this section irrespective of whether an order granting probation or other order is made suspending the imposition of the sentence or whether sentence is imposed but execution thereof is suspended.

(b)Notwithstanding any other provision of this division, any determination made prior to a conviction or other final disposition of the criminal complaint or accusation by the court as to whether an individual who is terminated due to his absence from work because of incarceration voluntarily leaves without good cause may, if no appeal has been taken from the determination, for good cause be reconsidered by the department during the benefit year or extended duration period to which the determination relates. Notice of any reconsidered determination shall be given to the claimant and any employer or employing unit which received notice under Section 1328 or 1331, and the claimant or employer may appeal therefrom in the manner prescribed in Section 1328.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1 case, 1989–1989 · leading case: Yardville Supply Co. v. Bd. of Review, Dept. of Labor, 554 A.2d 1337 (N.J. 1989).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Yardville Supply Co. v. Bd. of Review, Dept. of Labor, 554 A.2d 1337 (N.J. 1989). · cites it 2× “Is it not anomalous to observe that if the incident had occurred while Sparks was driving for his employer and had been terminated for that as misconduct under 43:21-5(b), he would have been disqualified for benefits for only five weeks? The greater his relative fault, ( i.”

— Cal. Unemployment Insurance Code § 1256.1(a) — 1 case

Yardville Supply Co. v. Bd. of Review, Dept. of Labor, 554 A.2d 1337 (N.J. 1989). “Is it not anomalous to observe that if the incident had occurred while Sparks was driving for his employer and had been terminated for that as misconduct under 43:21-5(b), he would have been disqualified for benefits for only five weeks? The greater his relative fault, ( i.”

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.