Wash. Rev. Code » Title 50 · Chapter 50.20
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.060 (2026)

Disqualification from benefits due to 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, an individual shall be disqualified from benefits beginning with the first day of the calendar week in which he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected with his or her work and thereafter for seven calendar weeks and until he or she has obtained bona fide work in employment covered by this title and earned wages in that employment equal to seven times his or her weekly benefit amount. Alcoholism shall not constitute a defense to disqualification from benefits due to misconduct.
[ 2006 c 13 s 11. Prior: 2003 2nd sp.s. c 4 s 7; 2000 c 2 s 13; 1993 c 483 s 9; 1982 1st ex.s. c 18 s 16; 1977 ex.s. c 33 s 5; 1970 ex.s. c 2 s 22; 1953 ex.s. c 8 s 9; 1951 c 215 s 13; 1949 c 214 s 13; 1947 c 215 s 16; 1945 c 35 s 74; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 9998-212; prior: 1943 c 127 s 3; 1941 c 253 s 3; 1939 c 214 s 3; 1937 c 162 s 5.]

Notes:

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.
Application—2000 c 2 ss 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, and 12-15: See note following RCW 50.22.150.
Conflict with federal requirements—Severability—Effective date—2000 c 2: See notes following RCW 50.04.355.
Effective dates, applicability—Conflict with federal requirements—Severability—1993 c 483: See notes following RCW 50.04.293.
Severability—Conflict with federal requirements—1982 1st ex.s. c 18: See notes following RCW 50.12.200.
Effective dates—Construction—1977 ex.s. c 33: See notes following RCW 50.04.030.
Effective date—1970 ex.s. c 2: See note following RCW 50.04.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases, 1969–2018 · leading case: MacEy v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 752 P.2d 372 (Wash. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
MacEy v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 752 P.2d 372 (Wash. 1988). · cites it 14× “35, § 74; RCW 50.20.060. The word "misconduct" has never been defined by the Legislature.”
Henson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 779 P.2d 715 (Wash. 1989). · cites it 17× “For this reason, I would hold that Henson is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation under the terms of RCW 50.20.060. *382 I Henson was discharged from his job as a shipping clerk with Tam Engineering Corporation (Tam) on December 4, 1984.”
Safeco Ins. v. Meyering, 687 P.2d 195 (Wash. 1984). · cites it 8× “14, 1955), has long held that when an individual gives notice of an intent to quit in the future and that separation date is accelerated by the employer, the separation becomes a discharge and is adjudicated under the provisions of RCW 50.20.060. See In re Wilson, Comm. Dec.”
Tapper v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 858 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1993). · cites it 3× “The latter of these disqualifications is presently codified at RCW 50.20.060, which states in part: An individual shall be disqualified from benefits beginning with the first day of the calendar week in which he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected…”
Okamoto v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 27 P.3d 1203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 8× “Okamoto was separated from employment under disqualifying conditions under the misconduct provision of the Employment Security Act, former RCW 50.20.060 (1993), amended by Laws of 2000, ch.”
Leibbrand v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 107 Wash. App. 411 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 14× “The final sentence of RCW 50.20.060, which precludes a claimant from arguing as a defense to disqualification that alcoholism caused the alleged misconduct, is constitutional.”
Wilson v. Emp. SEC. Dept. of State, 940 P.2d 269 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 4× “After a hearing, the administrative law judge denied benefits on the ground that Wilson’s actions leading to his discharge amounted to misconduct under RCW 50.20.060. Wilson petitioned for review, asserting that he did not intentionally lose the diamonds, but rather "simply made…”
Read v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 813 P.2d 1262 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). · cites it 7× “When Read later applied for unemployment benefits from the Department, he was awarded benefits as of August 20, 1988, because the Department concluded Read had been "discharged" from employment under RCW 50.20.060 for a nondisquahfying reason.”
Harvey v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 766 P.2d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 12× “Harvey's refusal to obey her employer's order to fold linens constituted "misconduct" within RCW 50.20.060. Ms. Harvey was employed by Camlu Retirement Apartments as a kitchen aide from early 1982 until her discharge on November 15, 1986.”
Nelson v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 655 P.2d 242 (Wash. 1982). · cites it 3× “RCW 50.20.060. A departmental appeal tribunal reversed the denial of benefits, but was in turn reversed by the Commissioner of the Department.”
Durham v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 644 P.2d 154 (Wash. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 4× “, appeal a superior court judgment reversing a decision by the Commissioner of the Department of Employment Security that the respondent employees engaged in work-connected misconduct within the terms of RCW 50.20.060 disqualifying them from receiving unemployment compensation…”
Peterson v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 711 P.2d 1071 (Wash. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 4× “At a Department hearing, the initial determination that Peterson was discharged by the Service for misconduct and should therefore be denied benefits pursuant to RCW 50.20.060 was affirmed. After review, the Commissioner of the Department also affirmed the denial of benefits.”
Show all 56 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.060(1) — 14 cases
MacEy v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 752 P.2d 372 (Wash. 1988). “35, § 74; RCW 50.20.060. The word "misconduct" has never been defined by the Legislature.”
Tapper v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 858 P.2d 494 (Wash. 1993). “The latter of these disqualifications is presently codified at RCW 50.20.060, which states in part: An individual shall be disqualified from benefits beginning with the first day of the calendar week in which he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected…”
Henson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 779 P.2d 715 (Wash. 1989). “For this reason, I would hold that Henson is not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation under the terms of RCW 50.20.060. *382 I Henson was discharged from his job as a shipping clerk with Tam Engineering Corporation (Tam) on December 4, 1984.”
Safeco Ins. v. Meyering, 687 P.2d 195 (Wash. 1984). “14, 1955), has long held that when an individual gives notice of an intent to quit in the future and that separation date is accelerated by the employer, the separation becomes a discharge and is adjudicated under the provisions of RCW 50.20.060. See In re Wilson, Comm. Dec.”
Harvey v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 766 P.2d 460 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Harvey's refusal to obey her employer's order to fold linens constituted "misconduct" within RCW 50.20.060. Ms. Harvey was employed by Camlu Retirement Apartments as a kitchen aide from early 1982 until her discharge on November 15, 1986.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.060(2) — 2 cases
Fisher v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 822 P.2d 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Othello Cmty. Hosp. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 762 P.2d 1149 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988).
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.