Q: I was terminated due to not giving a urine anlysis. My argument is that it was given by directo oberservation

A: It sounds like you are challenging your termination based on the lack of a policy about direct observation during a urine analysis (UA) and your concerns about privacy and trauma. When a workplace conducts drug testing, they generally must follow specific procedures outlined in their policy handbook or employment agreement. If direct observation wasn't mentioned in these guidelines, you may have grounds to argue that your employer didn't follow their own procedures, which could support your case.

When appealing your unemployment denial, it's important to emphasize that you did not refuse the UA itself but rather the method of collection. Highlight that your refusal was based on reasonable grounds, such as privacy concerns and trauma, and that the employer's policy did not explicitly require or state that direct observation would be used. This could potentially strengthen your argument that you were not fired for misconduct but for a policy discrepancy.

Additionally, consider gathering any evidence or documentation showing that the employer deviated from their standard procedure or failed to notify employees about the direct observation requirement. If you have any medical or psychological reasons for your concerns, it could help to include them in your appeal. It might be helpful to consult the relevant state laws in Washington regarding privacy and employment rights to see if they support your situation.