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

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.080 (2026)

Disqualification for refusal to work

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
An individual is disqualified for benefits, if the commissioner finds that the individual has failed without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the commissioner, or to accept suitable work when offered the individual, or to return to his or her customary self-employment (if any) when so directed by the commissioner. Such disqualification shall begin with the week of the refusal and thereafter for seven calendar weeks and continue until the individual has obtained bona fide work in employment covered by this title and earned wages in that employment of not less than seven times his or her suspended weekly benefit amount.
[ 2000 c 2 s 14; 1993 c 483 s 10; 1959 c 321 s 1; 1953 ex.s. c 8 s 11; 1951 c 215 s 14; 1949 c 214 s 15; 1945 c 35 s 76; Rem. Supp. 1949 s 9998-214. Prior: 1943 c 127 s 3; 1941 c 253 s 3; 1939 c 214 s 3; 1937 c 162 s 5.]

Notes:

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.
Effective date—1959 c 321: "This act shall take effect on July 5, 1959." [ 1959 c 321 s 4.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1962–2021 · leading case: Darkenwald v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 350 P.3d 647 (Wash. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Darkenwald v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 350 P.3d 647 (Wash. 2015). · cites it 3× “080 in any prior administrative or judicial proceedings. Instead, this argument was first raised in an amicus brief filed in this court by amici Northwest Justice Project, *246 Legal Voice, and Washington Employment Lawyers Association.”
Watson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 138 P.3d 177 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 50.20.080. Moreover, the State has authority to waive the work search requirement under RCW 50.”
Watson v. Dep't of Labor & Indus., 133 Wash. App. 903 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006). “RCW 50.20.080. Moreover, the State has authority to waive the work search requirement under RCW 50.”
Fisher v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 822 P.2d 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 2× “Appellant seeks to avoid this conclusion, pointing out that a different disqualification statute — RCW 50.20.080, concerning disqualification for refusal to work — includes self-employment among the kinds of work that must be performed, if the Commissioner so directs, in order…”
Ancheta v. Daly, 461 P.2d 531 (Wash. 1969). “070 8 RCW 50.20.080. Another provision, RCW 50.”
Allen v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 516 P.2d 1032 (Wash. 1973). “070 (for misrepresen *150 tation in his claim); RCW 50.20.080 (for refusal to work); and RCW 50.”
Wallace v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 755 P.2d 815 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “Wallace relies on RCW 50.20.080 which states that a claimant is not required to accept employment unless it is suitable.”
Abulhosn v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 722 P.2d 1306 (Wash. 1986). “Moreover, RCW 50.20.080 allows an individual to decline unsuitable work and still receive benefits.”
Bartel v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 375 P.2d 154 (Wash. 1962). “RCW 50.20.080 (1953 Supp.) provides in part as follows: “ ‘An individual is disqualified for benefits, if the commissioner finds that he has failed without good cause, either to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the commissioner, or…”
Eggert v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 558 P.2d 1368 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 3× “Eggert, an unemployed machinist, was notified by the Employment Security Department that he would be denied unemployment benefits for (1) failure without good cause to apply for available, suitable work when so directed by the unemployment office (RCW 50.20.080), and (2) not…”
Belgarde v. Brooks, 576 P.2d 447 (Wash. Ct. App. 1978). “But while the act generally does speak in terms of weeks, it does not do so in all respects; RCW 50.”
Gaines v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 140 Wash. App. 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “100 (2002) 14 and RCW 50.20.080. 15 *799 ¶13 The commissioner disagreed.”
Show all 15 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.