Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.066 (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) 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 ten 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 ten times his or her weekly benefit amount. Alcoholism shall not constitute a defense to disqualification from benefits due to misconduct.
(2) An individual who has been discharged from his or her work because of gross misconduct shall have all hourly wage credits based on that employment or six hundred eighty hours of wage credits, whichever is greater, canceled.
(3) The employer shall notify the department of a felony or gross misdemeanor of which an individual has been convicted, or has admitted committing to a competent authority, not later than six months following the admission or conviction.
(4) The claimant shall disclose any conviction of the claimant of a work-connected felony or gross misdemeanor occurring in the previous two years to the department at the time of application for benefits.
[ 2006 c 13 s 13. Prior: 2003 2nd sp.s. c 4 s 9.]
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.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 33
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2009–2024 · leading case: Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014).
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly [Black] is not subject to disqualification under RCW 50.20.066. [43] ¶33 First, consistent with the directive of Nelson, the Commissioner properly concluded that there was “no evidence of a nexus between [Black’s post] and her work.”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 50.20.066(1); Tapper, 122 Wn.2d at 399 .”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 50.20.066(1). The parties here disagree on the definition of “misconduct.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 50.20.066(1). The parties here disagree on the definition of "misconduct.”
Daniels v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 281 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 50.20.066(1). RCW 50.04.294(1)(a). RCW 50.”
Michaelson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 187 Wash. App. 293 (Wash. Ct. App. 2015). “RCW 50.20.066(1). In relevant part, “misconduct” is defined as “[c]arelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence to show an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interest.”
Rodriguez v. City of Moses Lake, 243 P.3d 552 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “, willful and wanton behavior) will deprive a former employee of unemployment benefits under RCW 50.20.066; and under RCW 18.71.210, willful and wanton behavior will preclude immunity for emergency medical care providers.”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dept., 226 P.3d 263 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 50.20.066(1); Tapper, 122 Wash.2d at 399 , 858 P.”
Rodriguez v. City of Moses Lake, 158 Wash. App. 724 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “, willful and wanton behavior) will deprive a former employee of unemployment *732 benefits under RCW 50.20.066; and under RCW 18.71.210, willful and wanton behavior will preclude immunity for emergency medical care providers.”
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 320 P.3d 123 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “5 ¶23 RCW 50.20.066(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.”
State Of Washington, Dep't Of Emp. Sec., App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp (Wash. Ct. App. 2017). “After the hearing, an Administrative Law Judge(AU)determined Cuesta was discharged for misconduct under RCW 50.20.066(1) and RCW 50.04.294(1)(d), and was disqualified from receiving benefits.”
Sarah Christner v. Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2016). “But the notice identified RCW 50.20.066, the misconduct statute. This citation was sufficient to put Christner on 19 Appellant's Opening Br.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.066(1) — 28 cases
Kirby v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 342 P.3d 1151 (Wash. Ct. App. 2014). “Accordingly [Black] is not subject to disqualification under RCW 50.20.066. [43] ¶33 First, consistent with the directive of Nelson, the Commissioner properly concluded that there was “no evidence of a nexus between [Black’s post] and her work.”
Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 155 Wash. App. 24 (Wash. Ct. App. 2010). “RCW 50.20.066(1); Tapper, 122 Wn.2d at 399 .”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 148 Wash. App. 555 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 50.20.066(1). The parties here disagree on the definition of “misconduct.”
Markam Grp., Inc. v. State, Dept. of Emp. SEC., 200 P.3d 748 (Wash. Ct. App. 2009). “RCW 50.20.066(1). The parties here disagree on the definition of "misconduct.”
Daniels v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 281 P.3d 310 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). “RCW 50.20.066(1). RCW 50.04.294(1)(a). RCW 50.”
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.