Tennessee Code Annotated

Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303 (2024)

Disqualification for benefits

✓ Justia copy: laws through about 2024 (2025 and 2026 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaTenn. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Amended by 2023 Tenn. Acts, ch. 403, s 2, eff. 7/1/2024.

Amended by 2021EX3 Tenn. Acts, ch. 6, Secs.s 9, s 10 eff. 11/12/2021.

Amended by 2016 Tenn. Acts, ch. 1063, s 2, eff. 7/1/2016.

Amended by 2013 Tenn. Acts, ch. 427, s 3, eff. 7/1/2013.

Acts 1947, ch. 29, § 5; 1949, ch. 226, §§ 3-5; C. Supp. 1950, § 6901.5 (Williams, § 6901.29); Acts 1951, ch. 139, § 4; 1953, ch. 173, § 1; 1953, ch. 244, § 3; 1955, ch. 115, §§ 7-10; 1957, ch. 146, §§ 6, 7; 1959, ch. 202, §§ 3-6; 1961, ch. 263, § 1; 1963, ch. 176, § 4; 1967, ch. 208, § 3; 1971, ch. 132, § 2; 1973, ch. 130, § 4; 1974, ch. 460, §§ 5, 6; 1977, ch. 330, § 18; impl. am. Acts 1980, ch. 534, § 1; Acts 1980, ch. 641, §§ 2, 9; 1980, ch. 783, § 2; 1981, ch. 35, § 1; 1981, ch. 249, § 3; 1982, ch. 606, § 1; 1982, ch. 820, §§ 3-6; T.C.A. (orig. ed.), § 50-1324; Acts 1983, ch. 368, §§ 7, 8; 1985, ch. 169, § 1; 1985, ch. 317, §§ 2, 5; 1985, ch. 318, § 21; 1985, ch. 383, § 1; 1986, ch. 537, §§ 1, 2; 1986, ch. 597, § 2; 1987, ch. 212, § 1; 1987, ch. 317, § 1; 1987, ch. 344, § 1; 1987, ch. 368, §§ 1, 2; 1987, ch. 424, §§ 1-3; 1992, ch. 694, § 5; 1993, ch. 194, § 13; 1995, ch. 502, § 2; 1995, ch. 503, §§ 1-3; 1998, ch. 591, § 1; 1998, ch. 852, § 1; 1999, ch. 202, § 2; 2001, ch. 82, § 2; 2007 , ch. 183, §§ 2 - 5; 2009 , ch. 479, §§ 1, 2; 2010 , ch. 781, § 1; 2012 , ch. 682, § 1; 2012 , ch. 824, § 1; 2012 , ch. 940, § 1; 2012, ch. 1050, §§ 2, 6 - 8.


Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1983–2025 · leading case: Armstrong v. Neel, 725 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986).
Armstrong v. Neel, 725 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “One of the most common grounds used to disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits appears at Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(B) which provides: (a) A claimant shall be disqualified for benefits: ****** (2)(B) If the commissioner finds that the claimant has been discharged…”
Frogge v. Davenport, 906 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 12× “The term “good cause” is not defined in T.C.A. § 50-7-303. The following discussion of good cause is found in 81 C.”
Teter v. Repub. Parking Sys., Inc., 181 S.W.3d 330 (Tenn. 2005). · cites it 2× “See Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-7-303 (2004 Supp.); Jackson v.”
Simmons v. Culpepper, 937 S.W.2d 938 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 9× “This section provides that the Department may deny benefits to a claimant if it finds the claimant “has been discharged from such claimant’s most recent work for misconduct connected with such claimant’s work_” Tenn.”
Morris v. Esmark Apparel, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 563 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “One week later, the Appeals Tribunal acting through the appeals referee, vacated and set aside the decision of the Commissioner, disallowing plaintiff’s claim pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2) and finding that plaintiff was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.”
Perryman v. Bible, 653 S.W.2d 424 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 4× “§ 50-1324(B)(2) (now codified as T.C.A. § 50-7-303(2)(B).) based on a finding of fact that plaintiff had *427 been discharged on January 18, 1980, for misconduct connected with his work and had not subsequently worked or earned wages.”
Cherry v. Suburban Mfg. Co., 745 S.W.2d 273 (Tenn. 1988). · cites it 4× “See T.C.A. § 50-7-303(1). Appellee does not contend, however, that he complied with the requirements of that statutory provision.”
Simmons v. Traughber, 791 S.W.2d 21 (Tenn. 1990). · cites it 4× “The referee affirmed the agency's decision that Plaintiff's work conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303 (a)(2)(B). Following the adverse decision of the Appeals Referee, Plaintiff contacted the Legal Services office in Columbia.”
Miotke v. Kelley, 713 S.W.2d 910 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). · cites it 8× “The unemployment compensation law was enacted for the benefit of the unemployed, and since the disqualification for benefits because of misconduct is penal in nature, a liberal construction of the statute in favor of the employee is required. Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.”
Roberts v. Traughber, 844 S.W.2d 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “The trial court upheld the determination of the Tribunal and Board that plaintiff’s termination was due to “misconduct” within the meaning of T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a) and that plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.”
Yates v. Traughber, 747 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 18× “He filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits and the Department of Employment Security at the agency level denied the claim on the grounds that he was discharged when he failed to report to work as scheduled after an approved leave and this constituted “misconduct…”
Trice v. Traughber, 797 S.W.2d 886 (Tenn. 1990). · cites it 4× “The petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Review which upheld the decision of the Appeals Tribunal disallowing the claim under T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(B). Judicial review was then sought in the Chancery Court of Madison County where it was submitted on the record of the…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(1): 1 case
Cherry v. Suburban Mfg. Co., 745 S.W.2d 273 (Tenn. 1988). “See T.C.A. § 50-7-303(1). Appellee does not contend, however, that he complied with the requirements of that statutory provision.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(2)(B): 6 cases
Perryman v. Bible, 653 S.W.2d 424 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “§ 50-1324(B)(2) (now codified as T.C.A. § 50-7-303(2)(B).) based on a finding of fact that plaintiff had *427 been discharged on January 18, 1980, for misconduct connected with his work and had not subsequently worked or earned wages.”
Miotke v. Kelley, 713 S.W.2d 910 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “The unemployment compensation law was enacted for the benefit of the unemployed, and since the disqualification for benefits because of misconduct is penal in nature, a liberal construction of the statute in favor of the employee is required. Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.”
Cherry v. Suburban Mfg. Co., 745 S.W.2d 273 (Tenn. 1988). “See T.C.A. § 50-7-303(1). Appellee does not contend, however, that he complied with the requirements of that statutory provision.”
McClellan v. Bible, 699 S.W.2d 555 (Tenn. 1985).
Johnson v. Bible, 707 S.W.2d 510 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1985).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(8): 1 case
Holbrook v. Tennessee Dep't of Emp. Sec., 602 F. Supp. 507 (M.D. Tenn. 1984).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a): 6 cases
Roberts v. Traughber, 844 S.W.2d 192 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “The trial court upheld the determination of the Tribunal and Board that plaintiff’s termination was due to “misconduct” within the meaning of T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a) and that plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.”
Combs v. Stokes, No. 03A01-9701-CV-00022 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 1997).
Jeffery Riley v. State of Tennessee, No. M2023-01395-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 5, 2024).
Deena Brell v. Deniece Thomas, No. M2024-00300-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Mar. 13, 2025).
Melanie Lemon v. Williamson Cnty. Schs., 618 S.W.3d 1 (Tenn. 2021).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(1): 15 cases
Darden v. Stokes, 958 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Honorable Frank v. Williams, Iii, No. 03A01-9602-CH-00071 (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 16, 1996).
Sliger v. Stokes, 953 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Clementine Newman v. Karla Davis, No. W2013-00696-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 507100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014).
Doris Bridges v. Margaret Culpepper, No. 02A01-9704-CH-00074 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 1997).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(1)(2): 1 case
Lawuan Stanford v. Comm'r of the Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev. & Altama Footwear, No. W2004-02373-COA-R3-CV, 2005 WL 1833734 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 2, 2005).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(1)(A): 3 cases
Melissa A. Phillips v. Burns Phillips, No. E2015-00407-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2015).
Renita Dulaney v. Karla Davis, No. W2012-01020-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2013).
Clementine Newman v. Karla Davis, No. W2013-00696-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 507100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(2): 32 cases
Simmons v. Culpepper, 937 S.W.2d 938 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). “This section provides that the Department may deny benefits to a claimant if it finds the claimant “has been discharged from such claimant’s most recent work for misconduct connected with such claimant’s work_” Tenn.”
Morris v. Esmark Apparel, Inc., 832 S.W.2d 563 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991). “One week later, the Appeals Tribunal acting through the appeals referee, vacated and set aside the decision of the Commissioner, disallowing plaintiff’s claim pursuant to T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2) and finding that plaintiff was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.”
Mangrum v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 950 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Yates v. Traughber, 747 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “He filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits and the Department of Employment Security at the agency level denied the claim on the grounds that he was discharged when he failed to report to work as scheduled after an approved leave and this constituted “misconduct…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(A): 6 cases
Hale v. Neeley, 335 S.W.3d 599 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2010).
Clementine Newman v. Karla Davis, No. W2013-00696-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 507100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014).
Kimberly A. Sparkman v. Burns Phillips, No. M2013-01235-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 3058443 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 7, 2014).
Melissa A. Phillips v. Burns Phillips, No. E2015-00407-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 8, 2015).
Pavement Restorations, Inc. v. Thomas E. Ralls, No. W2016-01179-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 657775 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(B): 4 cases
Armstrong v. Neel, 725 S.W.2d 953 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1986). “One of the most common grounds used to disqualify a claimant from receiving benefits appears at Tenn.Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(B) which provides: (a) A claimant shall be disqualified for benefits: ****** (2)(B) If the commissioner finds that the claimant has been discharged…”
Trice v. Traughber, 797 S.W.2d 886 (Tenn. 1990). “The petitioner filed an appeal to the Board of Review which upheld the decision of the Appeals Tribunal disallowing the claim under T.C.A. § 50-7-303(a)(2)(B). Judicial review was then sought in the Chancery Court of Madison County where it was submitted on the record of the…”
Simmons v. Traughber, 791 S.W.2d 21 (Tenn. 1990). “The referee affirmed the agency's decision that Plaintiff's work conduct constituted disqualifying misconduct under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303 (a)(2)(B). Following the adverse decision of the Appeals Referee, Plaintiff contacted the Legal Services office in Columbia.”
Yates v. Traughber, 747 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “He filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits and the Department of Employment Security at the agency level denied the claim on the grounds that he was discharged when he failed to report to work as scheduled after an approved leave and this constituted “misconduct…”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(3): 2 cases
Imperial Foods, Inc. v. McQuaid, 874 S.W.2d 54 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1993).
Watauga Indus., Inc. v. Harry W. Greenwell, No. E1999-00699-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(4): 2 cases
Watauga Indus., Inc. v. Harry W. Greenwell, No. E1999-00699-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2000).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(7): 1 case
Anthony Parker v. Comm'r of Labor & Workforce Dev., No. M2023-01110-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Oct. 30, 2024).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(8)(1): 1 case
Combs v. Stokes, No. 03A01-9701-CV-00022 (Tenn. Ct. App. July 22, 1997).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(i): 1 case
Frogge v. Davenport, 906 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The term “good cause” is not defined in T.C.A. § 50-7-303. The following discussion of good cause is found in 81 C.”
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(l): 6 cases
Frogge v. Davenport, 906 S.W.2d 920 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1995). “The term “good cause” is not defined in T.C.A. § 50-7-303. The following discussion of good cause is found in 81 C.”
Yates v. Traughber, 747 S.W.2d 338 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1987). “He filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits and the Department of Employment Security at the agency level denied the claim on the grounds that he was discharged when he failed to report to work as scheduled after an approved leave and this constituted “misconduct…”
Mcpherson v. Stokes, 954 S.W.2d 749 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Sliger v. Stokes, 953 S.W.2d 208 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Darden v. Stokes, 958 S.W.2d 768 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(b)(3): 2 cases
Pavement Restorations, Inc. v. Thomas E. Ralls, No. W2016-01179-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 657775 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).
Hampton Crane Serv., Inc. v. Burns Phillips, No. M2017-02213-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 27, 2018).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(b)(3)(A): 2 cases
Pavement Restorations, Inc. v. Thomas E. Ralls, No. W2016-01179-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 657775 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).
Ruby Blackmon v. Eaton Elec., No. W2012-02039-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2013).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(b)(3)(A)(iv): 1 case
Clementine Newman v. Karla Davis, No. W2013-00696-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 507100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(b)(3)(A)(vi): 1 case
Clementine Newman v. Karla Davis, No. W2013-00696-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 507100 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2014).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(b)(3)(B): 1 case
Ruby Blackmon v. Eaton Elec., No. W2012-02039-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. May 17, 2013).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(b)(3)(D): 1 case
Pavement Restorations, Inc. v. Thomas E. Ralls, No. W2016-01179-COA-R3-CV, 2017 WL 657775 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(c)(1): 1 case
Doris Bridges v. Margaret Culpepper, No. 02A01-9704-CH-00074 (Tenn. Ct. App. Sept. 24, 1997).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(d)(1): 1 case
Mattie Bedford v. Margaret Culpepper, No. 02A01-9604-CH-00085 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 1997).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(d)(2): 1 case
James P. Mitchell v. James Davenport, No. 02A01-9510-CH-00230 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 12, 1997).
Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(d)(2)(C): 1 case
Campbell v. Labor & Indus. Relations Comm'n, 907 S.W.2d 246 (Mo. Ct. App. 1995).
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.