The standard to be applied is that of the employment contract, whether express or implied, which fixes the employee's duties in connection with his work. Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Tenn. 1978). An essential element of "misconduct connected with work" is a breach of a duty owed to the employer, as distinguished from society in general.

This court is to construe unemployment compensation statutes liberally. Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tenn. 1978). Moreover, the disqualification from benefits based on misconduct connected with employment is penal in nature, and courts must construe the disqualification liberally in favor of the employee.

This court is to construe unemployment compensation statutes liberally. Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 869 (Tenn. 1978). Moreover, the disqualification from benefits based on misconduct connected with employment is penal in nature, and courts must construe the disqualification liberally in favor of the employee.

Therefore, the Tennessee Supreme Court has held that they should be construed liberally in the employee's favor and that the disqualification provisions in the statutes should be construed narrowly. Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 869-70 (Tenn. 1978). The employer has the burden of proving that an employee should be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

Yet, knowing that his driving record would reveal serious violations, Otero consciously elected to omit the requested pertinent information from the job application and deliberately indicated in answer to an oral inquiry that he had no known driving violations. The authority relied upon by Otero includes Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 870 (Tenn. 1978) ("misconduct connected with work" is a breach of duty owed to the employer, as distinguished from society in general, and misdeeds predating the employment consequently cannot constitute misconduct connected with work in the subsequent employment); Nelson v. Department of Employment Sec., 98 Wn.2d 370, 655 P.2d 242 (1982) (for off-duty misconduct to justify denial of unemployment compensation benefits, the employer must show the employee's misconduct (1) had some nexus with the employee's work, (2) resulted in some harm to the employer's interest, and (3) was in fact conduct which was (a) violative of some code of behavior contracted for between the employer and the employee and (b) done with the intent or knowledge that the employer's interest would suffer); Giese v. Employment Div., 27 Or. App. 929, 557 P.2d 1354 (1976) (off-duty conduct was not a breach of a rule or regulation that had a reasonable relation to the employer's interest); and Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Acosta, 93 Ariz.

Tennessee's unemployment statutes are "construed liberally in the employee's favor," while the disqualification provisions are construed narrowly. Armstrong, 725 S.W.2d at 955 (citing Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 869-70 (Tenn. 1978)). "The employer has the burden of proving that an employee should be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits."

Because Tennessee's unemployment statutes were enacted for the benefit of unemployed workers, our Supreme Court has held that the statutes "should be construed liberally in the employee's favor and that the disqualification provisions in the statutes should be construed narrowly." Armstrong, 725 S.W.2d at 955 (citing Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 869-70 (Tenn. 1978)). An employer bears the burden of proving that an employee should be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

Because Tennessee's unemployment statutes were enacted for the benefit of unemployed workers, our Supreme Court has held that the statutes "should be construed liberally in the employee's favor and that the disqualification provisions in the statutes should be construed narrowly." Armstrong, 725 S.W.2d at 955 (citing Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 869-70 (Tenn. 1978)). An employer bears the burden of proving that an employee should be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.

We are also aware that unemployment compensation statutes should be construed liberally in favor of the employee and that an employer has the burden of proving the employee's disqualification from unemployment benefits. Id. at *5-6 (citing Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867, 869-70 (Tenn. 1978)); Armstrong, 725 S.W.2d at 955 (citing Weaver, 565 S.W.2d at 869-70). Law and Analysis

ated, it is obvious the provisions of the statute were intended to deny unemployment compensation to a claimant who was discharged — and hence unemployed — because of misconduct regardless of when or where it occurred so long as such misconduct was in law connected with the employee's work. The following states are in agreement with Maryland in its interpretation of the term "misconduct in connection with the work": Louisiana, Grimble v. Brown, 247 La. 376, 171 So.2d 653, cert. denied, 382 U.S. 861 (1965); Idaho, O'Neal v. Employment Security Agency, 89 Idaho 313, 404 P.2d 600 (1964); Wisconsin, Gregory v. Anderson, 14 Wis.2d 130, 109 N.W.2d 675 (1961); Texas, Texas Employment Comm. v. Ryan, 481 S.W.2d 172 (1972); Pennsylvania, Cadden v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 195 Pa. Super. 159, 169 A.2d 334 (1961); Oregon, Giese v. Employment Division, 27 Or. App. 929, 557 P.2d 1354 (1976); D.C., Budzanoski v. Dist. Unemployment Compensation Board, 326 A.2d 243 (1974); Tennessee, Weaver v. Wallace, 565 S.W.2d 867 (1978). After having determined that off-duty activities can constitute misconduct, we must now determine what factors must be present in order to find that a claimant's off-duty activities constitute misconduct in connection with the work. It should initially be noted that it would be impossible to list every situation where misconduct in connection with the work might occur. It would also be impossible to address every possible hypothetical factual circumstance which might present the question of whether misconduct in connection with the work has occurred.