Legal Opinion

Markam Group, Inc. v. Employment Security Department

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 3, 2009No. 26566-8-IIIPublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

f 1 An employer must show that an employee was discharged for “misconduct” to avoid paying state unemployment benefits. And that generally requires showing that the conduct/misconduct was intentional. The pertinent findings on review are those made by the commissioner, not those made by the superior court. Here, the commissioner’s findings support only the conclusion that the applicant performed her work ineptly, and that conclusion would not support a denial of her unemployment *559benefits. The trial court’s decision to deny benefits is not supported by the commissioner’s findings and…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Tapper v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  2. Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Employment Security DepartmentWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  3. Verizon Northwest, Inc. v. Wash. Emp. SEC. Dept.Washington Supreme Court · 2008
  4. R.D. Merrill Co. v. Pollution Control Hearings BoardWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. Pruitt v. Douglas CountyCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Michaelson v. Employment Security DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  2. Language Connection, LLC v. Employment Security DepartmentCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  3. David Hall v. State Of Washington Dept Of Employment SecurityCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2018
  4. Jeff Kirby, Apps. v. State Of Wa/dept. Of Employment Security, Resp.Court of Appeals of Washington · 2015
  5. Martin Michaelson v. Dept. Of Employment SecurityCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2015

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API