Wash. Rev. Code » Title 50 · Chapter 50.04
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.293 (2026)

Misconduct

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
With respect to claims that have an effective date before January 4, 2004, "misconduct" means an employee's act or failure to act in willful disregard of his or her employer's interest where the effect of the employee's act or failure to act is to harm the employer's business.
[ 2006 c 13 s 8. Prior: 2003 2nd sp.s. c 4 s 5; 1993 c 483 s 1.]

Notes:

Retroactive application—2006 c 13 ss 8-22: "(1) Sections 8 through 13 and 16 of this act apply retroactively to claims that have an effective date on or after January 4, 2004.
(2) Sections 14 and 15 of this act apply retroactively to claims that have an effective date on or after January 2, 2005.
(3) Sections 17 through 22 of this act apply retroactively to June 20, 2003." [ 2006 c 13 s 23.]
Conflict with federal requirements—Part headings not law—Severability—2006 c 13: See notes following RCW 50.20.120.
Conflict with federal requirements—Severability—Effective date—2003 2nd sp.s. c 4: See notes following RCW 50.01.010.
Effective dates—Applicability—1993 c 483: "(1) Sections 1 and 8 through 11 of this act are necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 3, 1993, and shall be effective as to separations occurring after July 3, 1993.
(2) Section 2 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 3, 1993, and is effective as to weeks claimed after July 3, 1993.
(3) Section 12 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 17, 1993], and is effective as to new claims filed after July 3, 1993.
(4) Section 19 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect July 3, 1993, and is effective as to requests for relief of charges received after July 3, 1993.
(5) Sections 15, 17, and 18 of this act shall be effective as to new extended benefit claims filed after October 2, 1993.
(6) Sections 13 and 14 of this act shall take effect January 1, 1994.
(7) Sections 3, 4, and 5 of this act shall take effect January 2, 1994.
(8) Sections 20 and 21 of this act shall take effect for tax year 1994.
(9) Section 16 of this act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 17, 1993]." [ 1993 c 483 s 23.]
Conflict with federal requirements—1993 c 483: "If any part of this act is found to be in conflict with federal requirements that are a prescribed condition to the allocation of federal funds to the state or the eligibility of employers in this state for federal unemployment tax credits, the conflicting part of this act is hereby declared to be inoperative solely to the extent of the conflict, and such finding or determination shall not affect the operation of the remainder of this act. The rules under this act shall meet federal requirements that are a necessary condition to the receipt of federal funds by the state or the granting of federal unemployment tax credits to employers in this state." [ 1993 c 483 s 24.]
Severability—1993 c 483: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1993 c 483 s 25.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases, 1996–2017 · leading case: Hamel v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 966 P.2d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hamel v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 966 P.2d 1282 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “In 1993, the Legislature enacted RCW 50.04.293, which defines “misconduct” as follows: “Misconduct” means an employee’s act or failure to act in willful disregard of his or her employer’s interest where the effect of the employee’s act or failure to act is to harm the employer’s…”
Dermond v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 947 P.2d 1271 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 6× “” RCW 50.04.293 (emphasis added). We hold that proof of tangible economic harm is not a prerequisite to denial of benefits, but actual detriment to the employer’s operations must be demonstrated.”
Wilson v. Emp. SEC. Dept. of State, 940 P.2d 269 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 3× “” The Commissioner adopted the administrative law judge’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and affirmed the denial of benefits on the ground that Wilson was discharged for misconduct and thus was ineligible for benefits.”
Galvin v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 942 P.2d 1040 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “In 1993, the Legislature enacted RCW 50.04.293, defining misconduct as "an employee’s act or failure to act in willful disregard of his or her employer’s interest where the effect of the employee’s act or failure to act is to harm the employer’s business.”
Anderson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 135 Wash. App. 887 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 50.04.293. 5 Willful Disregard of Employer’s Interests ¶16 An employee acts in “willful disregard” of the employer’s interest when the employee (1) is aware of the employer’s interest and (2) knows or should know that certain conduct jeopardizes that interest but (3)…”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Smith does not contend that former WAC 192-150-200 is contrary to RCW 50.04.293. The technology that Smith used recorded until the power ran out.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe filed her claim for unemployment after January 4, 2004; therefore, RCW 50.04.294’s definition of “misconduct” applies.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe filed her claim for unemployment after January 4, 2004; therefore, RCW 50.04.294's definition of "misconduct" applies.”
Barker v. Emp. Sec. Dept. of State, 112 P.3d 536 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005). “" RCW 50.04.293. Therefore, to constitute "disqualifying misconduct," the employee's conduct must be both willful and harmful to the employer.”
Anderson v. Emp. Sec. Dept. of State, 146 P.3d 475 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “RCW 50.04.293. [5] A. Willfull Disregard of Employer's Interests ¶ 16 An employee acts in "willful disregard" of the employer's interest when the employee (1) is aware of the employer's interest, and (2) knows or should know that certain conduct jeopardizes that interest, but…”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dept., 226 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “[3] Smith does not contend that former WAC 192-150-200 is contrary to RCW 50.04.293. [4] The technology that Smith used recorded until the power ran out.”
Leibbrand v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 107 Wash. App. 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “RCW 50.04.293. Hamel v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 93 Wn.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.