According to the SRH §§ 1305 and 1310, the following elements must be satisfied for a knowing violation:

• the work rule or policy actually existed-i.e., the rule must either be in writing or there must be substantial and credible evidence that the rule was verbally communicated to the claimant;
• the claimant was consciously aware at the time that he or she was engaging in conduct that violated the rule;
• the rule or policy was in fact violated;
• the rule or policy violation was done with the intent to violate the rule. Still v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Employment and Training, 423 Mass. 805, 672 N.E.2d 105 (1996).

In Still, the claimant was discharged for swearing at a patient who had provoked her. The Commissioner argued that because Still had admitted that she had prior knowledge of the employer's policy that patients were to be free from mental and physical abuse and that she understood that the consequences of violation of this policy included discharge, this was sufficient to establish that she had "knowingly violated the policy."

The Supreme Judicial Court disagreed. It found that, in the context of G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2), "‘knowing' implies some degree of intent, and that a discharged employee is not disqualified unless it can be shown that the employee, at the time of the act, was consciously aware that the act being committed was a violation of an employer's reasonable rule or policy." 423 Mass. at 813, 672 N.E. at 112; accord, Franclemont v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Employment and Training, 42 Mass. App. Ct. 267, 676 N.E.2d 1147 (1997).

The Still Court explicitly found that "Still's testimony . . . supports a conclusion that she lacked the state of mind required to find a ‘knowing' violation." 423 Mass. at 814. The Court further found that although "mitigating circumstances alone will not negate a showing of intent or thereby excuse a ‘knowing violation,' [they] may, however, serve as some indication of an employee's state of mind, and may aid the fact finder in determining whether a ‘knowing violation' has occurred." 423 Mass. at 815, 672 N.E.2d at 112. Furthermore, Still points out that "[t]he presence of mitigating circumstances may also be applicable in determining whether the violated rule was reasonable as applied." 423 Mass. at 815, n.11; 672 N.E.2d at 113, n. 11.

SRH § 1315(C) sets out a detailed analytical framework for rule violation cases. While the term "state of mind" is not used, it is clear from the emphasis on "conscious awareness" both of the act and the rule violation, that state of mind is a critical element.