James Levy


This Comment argues that the most appropriate test for applying the statutory definition of misconduct an objective test based on knowing disregard of the employer's interests by the employee, rather than any current interpretation of the definition by the courts of Washington. In Section One of this Comment, the policies behind the Employment Security Act and the ramifications of different culpability elements are discussed. Section Two details the different tests for misconduct generated by the courts. Part A of Section Two discusses the common law tests and their culpability elements prior to the 1993 statutory definition of misconduct. Part B discusses the more recent tests and culpability elements generated by the courts to interpret the statutory definition of misconduct. Section Three argues that the policy of the Employment Security Act and the legislative history of the 1993 statutory definition best support an objective test with a knowing disregard culpability element as the appropriate interpretation of the statutory definition.