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

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294 (2026)

✓ 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 on or after January 4, 2004:
(1) "Misconduct" includes, but is not limited to, the following conduct by a claimant:
(a) Willful or wanton disregard of the rights, title, and interests of the employer or a fellow employee;
(b) Deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of an employee;
(c) Carelessness or negligence that causes or would likely cause serious bodily harm to the employer or a fellow employee; or
(d) Carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence to show an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer's interest.
(2) The following acts are considered misconduct because the acts signify a willful or wanton disregard of the rights, title, and interests of the employer or a fellow employee. These acts include, but are not limited to:
(a) Insubordination showing a deliberate, willful, or purposeful refusal to follow the reasonable directions or instructions of the employer;
(b) Repeated inexcusable tardiness following warnings by the employer;
(c) Dishonesty related to employment, including but not limited to deliberate falsification of company records, theft, deliberate deception, or lying;
(d) Repeated and inexcusable absences, including absences for which the employee was able to give advance notice and failed to do so;
(e) Deliberate acts that are illegal, provoke violence or violation of laws, or violate the collective bargaining agreement. However, an employee who engages in lawful union activity may not be disqualified due to misconduct;
(f) Violation of a company rule if the rule is reasonable and if the claimant knew or should have known of the existence of the rule; or
(g) Violations of law by the claimant while acting within the scope of employment that substantially affect the claimant's job performance or that substantially harm the employer's ability to do business.
(3) "Misconduct" does not include:
(a) Inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure to perform well as the result of inability or incapacity;
(b) Inadvertence or ordinary negligence in isolated instances;
(c) Good faith errors in judgment or discretion; or
(d)(i) A health care worker who left work for the period of quarantine consistent with the recommended guidance from the United States centers for disease control and prevention or subject to the direction of the state or local health jurisdiction because of exposure to or contracting the disease that is the subject of the declaration of the public health emergency.
(ii) For purposes of this subsection, "health care worker" means an individual who worked at a health care facility as defined in RCW 9A.50.010, and was directly involved in the delivery of health services.
(4) "Gross misconduct" means a criminal act in connection with an individual's work for which the individual has been convicted in a criminal court, or has admitted committing, or conduct connected with the individual's work that demonstrates a flagrant and wanton disregard of and for the rights, title, or interest of the employer or a fellow employee.
[ 2021 c 251 s 1; 2006 c 13 s 9. Prior: 2003 2nd sp.s. c 4 s 6.]

Notes:

Conflict with federal requirements—2021 c 251 ss 1-4: "If any part of sections 1 through 4 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 sections 1 through 4 of this act is inoperative solely to the extent of the conflict, and the finding or determination does not affect the operation of the remainder of sections 1 through 4 of this act. Rules adopted under sections 1 through 4 of this act must 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." [ 2021 c 251 s 5.]
Effective date—2021 c 251: "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 takes effect immediately [May 11, 2021]." [ 2021 c 251 s 7.]
Retroactive application—2006 c 13 ss 8-22: See note following RCW 50.04.293.
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 37 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2005–2024 · leading case: Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 9× “Privacy Act Violations ¶23 Smith’s recordings of co-workers and members of the public without their consent also disqualified him from receiving unemployment benefits under RCW 50.04.294. RCW 50.04.294(2)(e) and (g) provide that an employee commits misconduct if he engages in “…”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 11× “Monroe argue that the definition of misconduct in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶ 15 A statutory definition of "misconduct" did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wash.”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 10× “PSSP contends that Black committed statutory misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. But at oral argument, PSSP appeared to concede that misconduct would not be material to the outcome of this case if it failed to establish that the conduct here was work connected.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 9× “Monroe argue that the definition of “misconduct” in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶15 A statutory definition of “misconduct” did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wn.”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dept., 226 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 10× “while acting within the scope of employment ... that substantially harm the employer's ability to do business.”
Daniels v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 281 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “RCW 50.04.294(1)(a). RCW 50.04.294(2)(b), (f).”
Michaelson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 187 Wash. App. 293 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 4× “RCW 50.04.294(3) excludes the following acts from the definition of misconduct: (a) Inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure to perform well as the result of inability or incapacity; (b) Inadvertence or ordinary negligence in isolated instances; or (c) Good faith errors…”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 320 P.3d 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 3× “066(1) provides: “An individual shall be disqualified from benefits [if] he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected with his or her work____” RCW 50.04.294(1) defines “misconduct” as follows: “Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following…”
Denise Fugate, V State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 25× “The Commissioner also supplemented some of the ALJ’s findings with its own. Fugate appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court, which adopted the Commissioner’s findings, but reversed because it found that Fugate’s “actions reflect an error in judgment and not misconduct…”
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 24× “Disqualifying Misconduct Cuesta argues that the Commissioner erroneously concluded that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. We disagree. The Employment Security Act, Title 50 RCW,exists to…”
State Of Wa Emp. Sec., V Harold Gary Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 22× “Although Smith claimed to not be aware his employer had a policy against 7 Williams also notes that Johnson is of limited use in interpreting the statutory meaning of misconduct because it predates RCW 50.04.294, and because Johnson relies on a less rigorous interpretation of…”
Sarah Christner v. Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 16× “Because this constitutes disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(1 )(b), we affirm. FACTS In November 2012, Christner began working as a full-time receptionist for the Washington Center for Pain Management (WCPM) in Bellevue, Washington.”
Show all 37 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(1) — 19 cases
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of “misconduct” in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶15 A statutory definition of “misconduct” did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wn.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of misconduct in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶ 15 A statutory definition of "misconduct" did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wash.”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “PSSP contends that Black committed statutory misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. But at oral argument, PSSP appeared to concede that misconduct would not be material to the outcome of this case if it failed to establish that the conduct here was work connected.”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 320 P.3d 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “066(1) provides: “An individual shall be disqualified from benefits [if] he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected with his or her work____” RCW 50.04.294(1) defines “misconduct” as follows: “Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following…”
Starr v. State Dept. of Emp. Sec., 123 P.3d 513 (Wash. Ct. App. 2005).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(1)(a) — 12 cases
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of misconduct in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶ 15 A statutory definition of "misconduct" did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wash.”
Daniels v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 281 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 50.04.294(1)(a). RCW 50.04.294(2)(b), (f).”
Tina Beach v. State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
Michael P. Maurice v. Wa State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
State Of Wa Emp. Sec., V Harold Gary Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Although Smith claimed to not be aware his employer had a policy against 7 Williams also notes that Johnson is of limited use in interpreting the statutory meaning of misconduct because it predates RCW 50.04.294, and because Johnson relies on a less rigorous interpretation of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(1)(b) — 8 cases
Denise Fugate, V State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The Commissioner also supplemented some of the ALJ’s findings with its own. Fugate appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court, which adopted the Commissioner’s findings, but reversed because it found that Fugate’s “actions reflect an error in judgment and not misconduct…”
Sarah Christner v. Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Because this constitutes disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(1 )(b), we affirm. FACTS In November 2012, Christner began working as a full-time receptionist for the Washington Center for Pain Management (WCPM) in Bellevue, Washington.”
Tina Beach v. State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Disqualifying Misconduct Cuesta argues that the Commissioner erroneously concluded that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. We disagree. The Employment Security Act, Title 50 RCW,exists to…”
Richard L. Ferguson, App v. State Of Washington Dep't Of Emp. Sec., Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(1)(c) — 3 cases
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of “misconduct” in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶15 A statutory definition of “misconduct” did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wn.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of misconduct in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶ 15 A statutory definition of "misconduct" did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wash.”
State Of Wa Emp. Sec., V Harold Gary Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Although Smith claimed to not be aware his employer had a policy against 7 Williams also notes that Johnson is of limited use in interpreting the statutory meaning of misconduct because it predates RCW 50.04.294, and because Johnson relies on a less rigorous interpretation of…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(1)(d) — 7 cases
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dept., 226 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “while acting within the scope of employment ... that substantially harm the employer's ability to do business.”
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Disqualifying Misconduct Cuesta argues that the Commissioner erroneously concluded that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. We disagree. The Employment Security Act, Title 50 RCW,exists to…”
State Of Wa Emp. Sec., V Harold Gary Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Although Smith claimed to not be aware his employer had a policy against 7 Williams also notes that Johnson is of limited use in interpreting the statutory meaning of misconduct because it predates RCW 50.04.294, and because Johnson relies on a less rigorous interpretation of…”
Medelez, Inc. v. Dep't Of Emp't Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
Martin Michaelson v. Dept. Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(2) — 15 cases
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “PSSP contends that Black committed statutory misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. But at oral argument, PSSP appeared to concede that misconduct would not be material to the outcome of this case if it failed to establish that the conduct here was work connected.”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 320 P.3d 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “066(1) provides: “An individual shall be disqualified from benefits [if] he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected with his or her work____” RCW 50.04.294(1) defines “misconduct” as follows: “Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following…”
State Of Wa Emp. Sec., V Harold Gary Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Although Smith claimed to not be aware his employer had a policy against 7 Williams also notes that Johnson is of limited use in interpreting the statutory meaning of misconduct because it predates RCW 50.04.294, and because Johnson relies on a less rigorous interpretation of…”
White Water Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Dep't Of Emp. Sec. v. Noelee Loeffelbein (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(2)(a) — 5 cases
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dept., 226 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “while acting within the scope of employment ... that substantially harm the employer's ability to do business.”
Denise Fugate, V State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The Commissioner also supplemented some of the ALJ’s findings with its own. Fugate appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court, which adopted the Commissioner’s findings, but reversed because it found that Fugate’s “actions reflect an error in judgment and not misconduct…”
Michael P. Maurice v. Wa State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
Jeff Kirby, Apps. v. State Of Wa/dept. Of Emp. Sec., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
Riccardo Green v. State Of Wa., Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(2)(b) — 1 case
Daniels v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 281 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 50.04.294(1)(a). RCW 50.04.294(2)(b), (f).”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(2)(c) — 1 case
White Water Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(2)(d) — 1 case
Donald Baker, App. v. State Of Wa, Emp. Sec. Dept., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(2)(e) — 2 cases
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Privacy Act Violations ¶23 Smith’s recordings of co-workers and members of the public without their consent also disqualified him from receiving unemployment benefits under RCW 50.04.294. RCW 50.04.294(2)(e) and (g) provide that an employee commits misconduct if he engages in “…”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dept., 226 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “while acting within the scope of employment ... that substantially harm the employer's ability to do business.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(2)(f) — 18 cases
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Privacy Act Violations ¶23 Smith’s recordings of co-workers and members of the public without their consent also disqualified him from receiving unemployment benefits under RCW 50.04.294. RCW 50.04.294(2)(e) and (g) provide that an employee commits misconduct if he engages in “…”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “PSSP contends that Black committed statutory misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. But at oral argument, PSSP appeared to concede that misconduct would not be material to the outcome of this case if it failed to establish that the conduct here was work connected.”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dept., 226 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “while acting within the scope of employment ... that substantially harm the employer's ability to do business.”
Daniels v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 281 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 50.04.294(1)(a). RCW 50.04.294(2)(b), (f).”
Nooksack Indian Tribe & State Of Wa., Dept. Of Empl. Sec., Apps. v. Nadene Rapada, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(3) — 15 cases
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of “misconduct” in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶15 A statutory definition of “misconduct” did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wn.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of misconduct in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶ 15 A statutory definition of "misconduct" did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wash.”
Daniels v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 281 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 50.04.294(1)(a). RCW 50.04.294(2)(b), (f).”
Michaelson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 187 Wash. App. 293 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 50.04.294(3) excludes the following acts from the definition of misconduct: (a) Inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure to perform well as the result of inability or incapacity; (b) Inadvertence or ordinary negligence in isolated instances; or (c) Good faith errors…”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 320 P.3d 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “066(1) provides: “An individual shall be disqualified from benefits [if] he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected with his or her work____” RCW 50.04.294(1) defines “misconduct” as follows: “Misconduct” includes, but is not limited to, the following…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(3)(a) — 6 cases
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of “misconduct” in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶15 A statutory definition of “misconduct” did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wn.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of misconduct in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶ 15 A statutory definition of "misconduct" did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wash.”
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Disqualifying Misconduct Cuesta argues that the Commissioner erroneously concluded that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. We disagree. The Employment Security Act, Title 50 RCW,exists to…”
Sarah Christner v. Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “Because this constitutes disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(1 )(b), we affirm. FACTS In November 2012, Christner began working as a full-time receptionist for the Washington Center for Pain Management (WCPM) in Bellevue, Washington.”
Jeff Kirby, Apps. v. State Of Wa/dept. Of Emp. Sec., Resp. (Wash. Ct. App. 2015).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(3)(b) — 6 cases
State Of Wa Emp. Sec., V Harold Gary Williams (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “Although Smith claimed to not be aware his employer had a policy against 7 Williams also notes that Johnson is of limited use in interpreting the statutory meaning of misconduct because it predates RCW 50.04.294, and because Johnson relies on a less rigorous interpretation of…”
Tina Beach v. State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2017).
White Water Constr., Inc. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2021).
Denise Fugate, V State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The Commissioner also supplemented some of the ALJ’s findings with its own. Fugate appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court, which adopted the Commissioner’s findings, but reversed because it found that Fugate’s “actions reflect an error in judgment and not misconduct…”
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “Disqualifying Misconduct Cuesta argues that the Commissioner erroneously concluded that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he committed disqualifying misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. We disagree. The Employment Security Act, Title 50 RCW,exists to…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(3)(c) — 4 cases
Denise Fugate, V State Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “The Commissioner also supplemented some of the ALJ’s findings with its own. Fugate appealed to the Thurston County Superior Court, which adopted the Commissioner’s findings, but reversed because it found that Fugate’s “actions reflect an error in judgment and not misconduct…”
Nooksack Indian Tribe & State Of Wa., Dept. Of Empl. Sec., Apps. v. Nadene Rapada, Res. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016).
Kasandra Gerimonte v. Emp't Sec. Dep't (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
Laurie Englund, V. State Of Wa Emp. Sec. Dept. (Wash. Ct. App. 2024).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(l)(a) — 1 case
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “Monroe argue that the definition of “misconduct” in RCW 50.04.294 applies. ¶15 A statutory definition of “misconduct” did not exist when the court decided Tapper, 122 Wn.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(l)(b) — 1 case
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “PSSP contends that Black committed statutory misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. But at oral argument, PSSP appeared to concede that misconduct would not be material to the outcome of this case if it failed to establish that the conduct here was work connected.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.04.294(l)(d) — 3 cases
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “Privacy Act Violations ¶23 Smith’s recordings of co-workers and members of the public without their consent also disqualified him from receiving unemployment benefits under RCW 50.04.294. RCW 50.04.294(2)(e) and (g) provide that an employee commits misconduct if he engages in “…”
Michaelson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 187 Wash. App. 293 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 50.04.294(3) excludes the following acts from the definition of misconduct: (a) Inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, or failure to perform well as the result of inability or incapacity; (b) Inadvertence or ordinary negligence in isolated instances; or (c) Good faith errors…”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “PSSP contends that Black committed statutory misconduct under RCW 50.04.294. But at oral argument, PSSP appeared to concede that misconduct would not be material to the outcome of this case if it failed to establish that the conduct here was work connected.”
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.