Va. Code » Title 60.2. Unemployment Compensation » Chapter 6. Benefits » Article 4. Eligibility Criteria
Virginia Code

Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618 (2026)

Disqualification for benefits

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section VA-LISlaw.lis.virginia.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

An individual shall be disqualified for benefits upon separation from the last employing unit for whom he has worked 30 days or 240 hours or from any subsequent employing unit:

1. For any week benefits are claimed until he has performed services for an employer (i) during 30 days, whether or not such days are consecutive, or (ii) for 240 hours, and subsequently becomes totally or partially separated from such employment, if the Commission finds such individual is unemployed because he left work voluntarily without good cause.

If (a) at the time of commencing employment with such employing unit an individual is enrolled in an accredited academic program of study provided by an institution of higher education for students that have been awarded a baccalaureate degree, which academic program culminates in the awarding of a master's, doctoral, or professional degree; (b) the individual's employment with such employing unit commenced and ended during the period between spring and fall semesters of the academic program in which the individual is enrolled; and (c) the individual returned to such academic program following his separation from such employing unit, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the individual left work voluntarily.

As used in this chapter, "good cause" shall not include (1) voluntarily leaving work with an employer to become self-employed or (2) voluntarily leaving work with an employer to accompany or to join his or her spouse in a new locality, except where an individual leaves employment to accompany a spouse to the location of the spouse's new duty assignment if (A) the spouse is on active duty in the military or naval services of the United States; (B) the spouse's relocation to a new military-related assignment is pursuant to a permanent change of station order; (C) the location of the spouse's new duty assignment is not readily accessible from the individual's place of employment; and (D) except for members of the Virginia National Guard relocating to a new assignment within the Commonwealth, the spouse's new duty assignment is located in a state that, pursuant to statute, does not deem a person accompanying a military spouse as a person leaving work voluntarily without good cause. An individual shall not be deemed to have voluntarily left work solely because the separation was in accordance with a seniority-based policy.

2. a. For any week benefits are claimed until he has performed services for an employer (i) during 30 days, whether or not such days are consecutive, or (ii) for 240 hours, and subsequently becomes totally or partially separated from such employment, if the Commission finds such individual is unemployed because he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his work.

b. For the purpose of this subdivision, "misconduct" includes, but shall not be limited to:

(1) An employee's confirmed positive test for a nonprescribed controlled substance, identified as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1, where such test was conducted at the direction of his employer in conjunction with the employer's administration and enforcement of a known workplace drug policy. Such test shall have been performed, and a sample collected, in accordance with scientifically recognized standards by a laboratory accredited by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or the College of American Pathology, or the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, or the equivalent, or shall have been a United States Department of Transportation-qualified drug screen conducted in accordance with the employer's bona fide drug policy. The Commission may consider evidence of mitigating circumstances in determining whether misconduct occurred.

(2) An employee's intentionally false or misleading statement of a material nature concerning past criminal convictions made in a written job application furnished to the employer, where such statement was a basis for the termination and the employer terminated the employee promptly upon the discovery thereof. The Commission may consider evidence of mitigating circumstances in determining whether misconduct occurred.

(3) A willful and deliberate violation of a standard or regulation of the Commonwealth, by an employee of an employer licensed or certified by the Commonwealth, which violation would cause the employer to be sanctioned or have its license or certification suspended by the Commonwealth. The Commission may consider evidence of mitigating circumstances in determining whether misconduct occurred.

(4) Chronic absenteeism or tardiness in deliberate violation of a known policy of the employer or one or more unapproved absences following a written reprimand or warning relating to more than one unapproved absence. The Commission may consider evidence of mitigating circumstances in determining whether misconduct occurred.

(5) An employee's loss of or failure to renew a license or certification that is a requisite of the position held by the employee, provided the employer is not at fault for the employee's loss of or failure to renew the license or certification. The Commission may consider evidence of mitigating circumstances in determining whether misconduct occurred.

3. a. If it is determined by the Commission that such individual has failed, without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the Commission or to accept suitable work when offered him. The disqualification shall commence with the week in which such failure occurred, and shall continue for the period of unemployment next ensuing until he has performed services for an employer (i) during 30 days, whether or not such days are consecutive, or (ii) for 240 hours, and subsequently becomes totally or partially separated from such employment.

b. In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the Commission shall consider the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience, his length of unemployment and the accessibility of the available work from his residence.

c. No work shall be deemed suitable and benefits shall not be denied under this title to any otherwise eligible individual for refusing to accept new work under any of the following conditions:

(1) If the position offered is vacant due directly to a strike, lockout, or other labor dispute;

(2) If the wages, hours, or other conditions of the work offered are substantially less favorable to the individual than those prevailing for similar work in the locality; or

(3) If as a condition of being employed the individual would be required to join a company union or to resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor organization.

d. No individual shall be qualified for benefits during any week that such individual, in connection with an offer of suitable work, has a confirmed positive test for a nonprescribed controlled substance, identified as such in Chapter 34 (§ 54.1-3400 et seq.) of Title 54.1, if the test is required as a condition of employment and (i) performed, and a sample is collected, in accordance with scientifically recognized standards by a laboratory accredited by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, or the College of American Pathology, or the American Association for Clinical Chemistry, or the equivalent, or (ii) a United States Department of Transportation-qualified drug screen conducted in accordance with the employer's bona fide drug policy. The disqualification shall commence with the week in which such a test was conducted, and shall continue for the period of unemployment next ensuing until he has performed services for an employer (i) during 30 days, whether or not such days are consecutive, or (ii) for 240 hours, and subsequently becomes totally or partially separated from such employment.

4. For 52 weeks, beginning with the date of the determination or decision, if the Commission finds that such individual, within 36 calendar months immediately preceding such determination or decision, has made a false statement or representation knowing it to be false, or has knowingly failed to disclose a material fact, to obtain or increase any benefit or payment under this title, the unemployment compensation of any other state, or any other program of the federal government which is administered in any way under this title, either for himself or any other person. Overpayments that have been fraudulently obtained and any penalty assessed against the individual pursuant to § 60.2-636 shall be recoverable as provided in § 60.2-633.

5. If such separation arose as a result of an unlawful act which resulted in a conviction and after his release from prison or jail until he has performed services for an employer for (i) 30 days, whether or not such days are consecutive, or (ii) 240 hours, and subsequently becomes totally or partially separated from such employment.

6. If such separation arose as a condition of the individual's parole or release from a custodial or penal institution and such individual was participating in the community corrections alternative program pursuant to § 19.2-316.4.

Code 1950, § 60-47; 1952, c. 184; 1954, c. 203; 1956, c. 440; 1960, c. 136; 1962, c. 12; 1966, c. 30; 1968, c. 738, § 60.1-58; 1972, c. 764; 1974, c. 466; 1977, c. 286; 1979, cc. 675, 681; 1981, c. 251; 1982, cc. 319, 363; 1983, c. 559; 1984, c. 458; 1986, c. 480; 1991, c. 296; 1993, c. 249; 1996, cc. 175, 182, 194, 199; 1997, c. 202; 1998, c. 241; 1999, c. 919; 2004, cc. 525, 977; 2005, c. 464; 2008, c. 719; 2009, c. 878; 2013, cc. 175, 771; 2014, cc. 201, 442; 2019, c. 618.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 134 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case: Johnson v. Virginia Emp. Com'n, 382 S.E.2d 476 (Va. Ct. App. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Johnson v. Virginia Emp. Com'n, 382 S.E.2d 476 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 44× “Code § 60.2-618 enumerates circumstances which disqualify an individual for unemployment benefits.”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Cmty. Alternatives, Inc., 705 S.E.2d 530 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 22× “2-618(2)(b)(l) (added to Code § 60.2-618 by 1998 Va. Acts ch. 241 and 2008 Va.”
Actuarial Benefits & Design Corp. v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 478 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 1996). · cites it 33× “The statutory scheme for determining the qualification of a claim *645 ant for benefits contemplates a multi-staged shifting of the burden of proof between claimant and employer, and the commission is not required to determine the issue of a claimant’s cause for leaving in every…”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Gantt, 376 S.E.2d 808 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 14× “" Code § 60.2-618(2) (formerly Code § 60.1-58(b)).”
Deborah A. Wood v. VEC & Americomm Direct, 458 S.E.2d 319 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 28× “Code § 60.2-618 provides, in pertinent part: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits upon separation from the last employing unit for whom he has worked thirty days or from any subsequent employing unit: * * * * * * * 2.”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Fitzgerald, 452 S.E.2d 692 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 14× “Fitzgerald (claimant) for unemployment benefits, the Virginia Employment Commission (commission) determined that she resigned employment without good cause and was precluded relief by Code § 60.2-618(1). Claimant petitioned for judicial review of this decision, and the trial…”
Chauncey F. Hutter, Inc. v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 652 S.E.2d 151 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 12× “Regardless of whether it “may or may not be better public policy” to interpret Code § 60.2-618 as either appellant or the Commission urges, “such judgments are not ours to make.”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Trent, 687 S.E.2d 99 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 6× “Trent for unemployment benefits under Code § 60.2-618(2) because her employer fired her for misconduct.”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n & Hercules, Inc. v. Sutphin, 380 S.E.2d 667 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 8× “1 Code § 60.2-618 provides in pertinent part: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits upon separation from the last employing unit for whom he has worked thirty days or from any subsequent employing unit: * ** * (2) For any week benefits are claimed until he has…”
Whitt v. Race Fork Coal Corp., 441 S.E.2d 357 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 8× “Whether the commission properly disqualified Whitt under Code § 60.2-618 is a mixed question of law and fact.”
Umbarger v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 404 S.E.2d 380 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 4× “This appeal is from a February 16, 1990 final order of the Circuit Court of Wise County affirming the Virginia Employment Commission’s ruling that, in accordance with Code § 60.2-618(1), Kathy B. Umbarger, appellant, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits based on…”
Whitt v. Ervin B. Davis & Co., 457 S.E.2d 779 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 6× “2d 180 (1978), the Supreme Court established a two-pronged test for determining the type of employee misconduct that justifies a denial of employment benefits pursuant to Code § 60.2-618: [W]hen [the employee] deliberately violates a company rule reasonably designed to protect…”
Show all 134 citing cases →
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(1): 49 cases
Actuarial Benefits & Design Corp. v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 478 S.E.2d 735 (Va. Ct. App. 1996). “The statutory scheme for determining the qualification of a claim *645 ant for benefits contemplates a multi-staged shifting of the burden of proof between claimant and employer, and the commission is not required to determine the issue of a claimant’s cause for leaving in every…”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Fitzgerald, 452 S.E.2d 692 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “Fitzgerald (claimant) for unemployment benefits, the Virginia Employment Commission (commission) determined that she resigned employment without good cause and was precluded relief by Code § 60.2-618(1). Claimant petitioned for judicial review of this decision, and the trial…”
Chauncey F. Hutter, Inc. v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 652 S.E.2d 151 (Va. Ct. App. 2007). “Regardless of whether it “may or may not be better public policy” to interpret Code § 60.2-618 as either appellant or the Commission urges, “such judgments are not ours to make.”
Umbarger v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 404 S.E.2d 380 (Va. Ct. App. 1991). “This appeal is from a February 16, 1990 final order of the Circuit Court of Wise County affirming the Virginia Employment Commission’s ruling that, in accordance with Code § 60.2-618(1), Kathy B. Umbarger, appellant, was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits based on…”
Whitt v. Race Fork Coal Corp., 441 S.E.2d 357 (Va. Ct. App. 1994). “Whether the commission properly disqualified Whitt under Code § 60.2-618 is a mixed question of law and fact.”
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(2): 64 cases
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Gantt, 376 S.E.2d 808 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). “" Code § 60.2-618(2) (formerly Code § 60.1-58(b)).”
Deborah A. Wood v. VEC & Americomm Direct, 458 S.E.2d 319 (Va. Ct. App. 1995). “Code § 60.2-618 provides, in pertinent part: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits upon separation from the last employing unit for whom he has worked thirty days or from any subsequent employing unit: * * * * * * * 2.”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n & Hercules, Inc. v. Sutphin, 380 S.E.2d 667 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). “1 Code § 60.2-618 provides in pertinent part: An individual shall be disqualified for benefits upon separation from the last employing unit for whom he has worked thirty days or from any subsequent employing unit: * ** * (2) For any week benefits are claimed until he has…”
Baker v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 399 S.E.2d 630 (Va. Ct. App. 1990).
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Trent, 687 S.E.2d 99 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). “Trent for unemployment benefits under Code § 60.2-618(2) because her employer fired her for misconduct.”
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(2)(a): 6 cases
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Cmty. Alternatives, Inc., 705 S.E.2d 530 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “2-618(2)(b)(l) (added to Code § 60.2-618 by 1998 Va. Acts ch. 241 and 2008 Va.”
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Trent, 687 S.E.2d 99 (Va. Ct. App. 2010). “Trent for unemployment benefits under Code § 60.2-618(2) because her employer fired her for misconduct.”
Williamson v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 690 S.E.2d 304 (Va. Ct. App. 2010).
Francis v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 717 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
Phillip Clay, Jr. v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, No. 1048213 (Va. Ct. App. June 14, 2022).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(2)(b): 4 cases
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Cmty. Alternatives, Inc., 705 S.E.2d 530 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “2-618(2)(b)(l) (added to Code § 60.2-618 by 1998 Va. Acts ch. 241 and 2008 Va.”
Smith v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 721 S.E.2d 18 (Va. Ct. App. 2012).
Carol Cenname v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n & Parallon Emp. LLC, No. 0934132 (Va. Ct. App. Feb. 11, 2014).
King v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, 62 Va. Cir. 222 (Fairfax Cir. Ct. 2003).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(2)(b)(4): 1 case
Mary Hampson v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, No. 0218123 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 27, 2012).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(2)(b)(l): 1 case
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Cmty. Alternatives, Inc., 705 S.E.2d 530 (Va. Ct. App. 2011). “2-618(2)(b)(l) (added to Code § 60.2-618 by 1998 Va. Acts ch. 241 and 2008 Va.”
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(3): 2 cases
Norman H. Hale v. Sw. Sanitation Co., No. 1071983 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 24, 1998).
Caroline Sword v. Auto. Indus. & VEC, No. 1373983 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 6, 1999).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(3)(a): 2 cases
Johnson v. Virginia Emp. Com'n, 382 S.E.2d 476 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). “Code § 60.2-618 enumerates circumstances which disqualify an individual for unemployment benefits.”
Sage v. Mouldings, Inc., 16 Va. Cir. 1 (Smyth Cir. Ct. 1988).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(3)(b): 3 cases
Johnson v. Virginia Emp. Com'n, 382 S.E.2d 476 (Va. Ct. App. 1989). “Code § 60.2-618 enumerates circumstances which disqualify an individual for unemployment benefits.”
Dowden v. Hercules, Inc., 655 S.E.2d 755 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
Sage v. Mouldings, Inc., 16 Va. Cir. 1 (Smyth Cir. Ct. 1988).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(3)(c): 1 case
Sage v. Mouldings, Inc., 16 Va. Cir. 1 (Smyth Cir. Ct. 1988).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(4): 1 case
Todd M. Jack v. Virginia Emp. Comm'n, No. 1366134 (Va. Ct. App. Nov. 5, 2013).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(B): 1 case
Virginia Emp. Comm'n v. Brenda R. Cole, No. 1268152 (Va. Ct. App. Apr. 5, 2016).
Va. Code Ann. § 60.2-618(l)(ii): 1 case
Austin v. Berryman, 670 F. Supp. 672 (W.D. Va. 1987).
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.