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

Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.100 (2026)

Suitable work factors

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) Suitable work for an individual is employment in an occupation in keeping with the individual's prior work experience, education, or training and if the individual has no prior work experience, special education, or training for employment available in the general area, then employment which the individual would have the physical and mental ability to perform. In determining whether work is suitable for an individual, the commissioner shall also consider the degree of risk involved to the individual's health, safety, and morals, the degree of risk to the health of those residing with the individual during a public health emergency, the individual's physical fitness, the individual's length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in the individual's customary occupation, the distance of the available work from the individual's residence, and such other factors as the commissioner may deem pertinent, including state and national emergencies.
(2) For individuals with base year work experience in agricultural labor, any agricultural labor available from any employer shall be deemed suitable unless it meets conditions in RCW 50.20.110 or the commissioner finds elements of specific work opportunity unsuitable for a particular individual.
(3) For part-time workers as defined in RCW 50.20.119, suitable work includes suitable work under subsection (1) of this section that is for seventeen or fewer hours per week.
(4) For individuals who have qualified for unemployment compensation benefits under *RCW 50.20.050 (1)(b)(iv) or (2)(b)(iv), as applicable, an evaluation of the suitability of the work must consider the individual's need to address the physical, psychological, legal, and other effects of domestic violence or stalking.
[ 2021 c 2 s 11; 2006 c 13 s 14. Prior: 2004 c 110 s 2; 2003 2nd sp.s. c 4 s 13; 2002 c 8 s 2; 1989 c 380 s 80; 1977 ex.s. c 33 s 6; 1973 1st ex.s. c 158 s 6; 1945 c 35 s 78; Rem. Supp. 1945 s 9998-216.]

Notes:

*Reviser's note: RCW 50.20.050 was amended twice during the 2009 legislative session, changing the subsection numbering.
Intent—Conflict with federal requirements—Effective date—2021 c 2: See notes following RCW 50.04.323.
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.
Effective date—1989 c 380 ss 78-81: See note following RCW 50.04.150.
Conflict with federal requirements—1989 c 380: See note following RCW 50.04.150.
Effective dates—Construction—1977 ex.s. c 33: See notes following RCW 50.04.030.
Effective date—1973 1st ex.s. c 158: See note following RCW 50.08.020.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1976–2023 · leading case: Cowles Publ'g Co. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 550 P.2d 712 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Cowles Publ'g Co. v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 550 P.2d 712 (Wash. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “In determining whether work is suitable for an individual or whether an individual has left work voluntarily without good cause, the commissioner shall consider the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience…”
Coleman v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 607 P.2d 1231 (Wash. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 2× “" RCW 50.20.100; Laws of 1973, 1st Ex. Sess.”
Wallace v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 755 P.2d 815 (Wash. Ct. App. 1988). “080 which states that a claimant is not required to accept employment unless it is suitable.”
Gaines v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 140 Wash. App. 791 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Therefore, the ALJ held Gaines was not disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to former RCW 50.20.100 (2002) 14 and RCW 50.20.080.”
Gaines v. State, Dept. of Emp. Sec., 166 P.3d 1257 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “Therefore, the ALJ held Gaines was not disqualified from receiving benefits pursuant to former RCW 50.20.100 [14] and RCW 50.20.080. [15] ¶ 13 The commissioner disagreed.”
Ayan Ali v. Washington State Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “" RCW 50.20.100(1). Additionally, the commissioner may consider: the degree of risk involved to the individual's health, safety, and morals; the individual's physical fitness; the individual's length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in the individual's…”
Jana Wolff, V State Of Wa Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “” RCW 50.20.100(1); WAC 192-170-050(c). 5 50669-6-II 010(1)(b).”
David Hall v. State Of Washington Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “235 because Hall worked as an "outside salesperson," and (2) that Hall's job as a commissioned salesperson was not "suitable" work under RCW 50.20.100 and 50.20.110. The Department objected to the introduction of the two new issues, arguing they were barred under RCW 34.”
Kyle J. Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “) RCW 50.20.100(1) defines “suitable work factors” as: 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 50.20.100(1) — 3 cases
Ayan Ali v. Washington State Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “" RCW 50.20.100(1). Additionally, the commissioner may consider: the degree of risk involved to the individual's health, safety, and morals; the individual's physical fitness; the individual's length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in the individual's…”
Jana Wolff, V State Of Wa Dept Of Emp. Sec. (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). “” RCW 50.20.100(1); WAC 192-170-050(c). 5 50669-6-II 010(1)(b).”
Kyle J. Smith v. Emp. Sec. Dep't (Wash. Ct. App. 2023). “) RCW 50.20.100(1) defines “suitable work factors” as: 4 For the current opinion, go to https://www.”
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.