Vermont Statutes Annotated

Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1340 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VT-LEGlegislature.vermont.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

Subchapter 001 : GENERAL BENEFITS

(Cite as: 21 V.S.A. § 1340)

§ 1340. Computation of benefits

(a) Except as provided in subchapter 2 of this chapter, the maximum total amount of benefits payable to any eligible individual during any benefit year shall not exceed the lesser of 26 times his or her weekly benefit amount or 46 percent of the total wages paid to the individual during his or her base period.

(b) An individual who is discharged by his or her last employing unit for misconduct connected with his or her work under subdivision 1344(a)(1)(A) of this title is limited to a maximum amount during the benefit year which is the lesser of the maximum amount determined under subsection (a) of this section or 23 times his or her weekly benefit amount, provided that the individual has not already received more than 23 weeks in his or her benefit year. (Amended 1959, No. 51, § 2; 1959, No. 107, § 2, eff. April 10, 1959; 1959, No. 329 (Adj. Sess.), § 22, eff. March 1, 1961; 1961, No. 210, § 15, eff. July 11, 1961; 1963, No. 84, § 5; 1971, No. 1, § 1, eff. Oct. 11, 1970; 2009, No. 156 (Adj. Sess.), § E.401.3, eff. June 3, 2010; 2009, No. 124 (Adj. Sess.), § 5, eff. July 1, 2011.)

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1984–2025 · leading case: Kelley v. Dep't of Labor, 2014 VT 74 (Vt. 2014).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Kelley v. Dep't of Labor, 2014 VT 74 (Vt. 2014). “See 21 V.S.A. § 1340 (limiting duration of unemployment benefits to 26 times the weekly benefit amount or 46 percent of total wages paid to individual during base period, whichever is less, and establishing further limits where individual is discharged for misconduct).”

Littlefield v. Dep't of Emp. & Training, 487 A.2d 507 (Vt. 1984). “These payments continued for twenty-six weeks, allowing her to receive the maximum benefits permitted under 21 V.S.A. § 1340. Upon the exhaustion of these benefits, the claimant applied for federal supplemental unemployment compensation benefits.”

Mohamed v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, 2012 VT 64 (Vt. 2012). · cites it 4× “In this case, FAHC was not able to appeal to this Court until several months after claimant had received his last benefits payment.”

Todd Balise v. Dep't of Labor (Vt. 2025). · cites it 2× “As a result, claimant was disqualified for benefits for a two-month period and subject to a benefit cap under 21 V.S.A. §§ 1340(b) and 1344(a)(1)(A). Claimant appealed the determination to an administrative law judge (ALJ).”

Timothy Farr v. Dept. of Labor (SL Uno of Burlington, Inc., t/a Pizzeria Uno, Emp.) (Vt. 2016). “” Accordingly, the ALJ reversed the decision of the claims adjudicator, and ruled that claimant was disqualified from benefits for a period of weeks under the provisions of 21 V.S.A. §§1340 and 1344. Claimant appealed to the Board.”

eo23-281_0.pdf (Vt. 2024). “As a result, the claims adjudicator concluded that claimant was disqualified from benefits for a period of weeks and subject to a maximum-benefit cap under 21 V.S.A. §§ 1340(b) and 1344(a)(1)(A). Claimant appealed the determination to an administrative law judge (ALJ).”

— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 21, § 1340(b) — 3 cases

Mohamed v. Fletcher Allen Health Care, 2012 VT 64 (Vt. 2012). “In this case, FAHC was not able to appeal to this Court until several months after claimant had received his last benefits payment.”

Todd Balise v. Dep't of Labor (Vt. 2025). “As a result, claimant was disqualified for benefits for a two-month period and subject to a benefit cap under 21 V.S.A. §§ 1340(b) and 1344(a)(1)(A). Claimant appealed the determination to an administrative law judge (ALJ).”

eo23-281_0.pdf (Vt. 2024). “As a result, the claims adjudicator concluded that claimant was disqualified from benefits for a period of weeks and subject to a maximum-benefit cap under 21 V.S.A. §§ 1340(b) and 1344(a)(1)(A). Claimant appealed the determination to an administrative law judge (ALJ).”

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.