Christensen v. Browntown Design LLC

RANDALL J. SLIETER JUDGE.

Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 46377073-3

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Johnson, Judge; and Slieter, Judge.

ORDER OPINION

RANDALL J. SLIETER JUDGE.

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:

1. Relator Emily Christensen challenges the denial of her application for unemployment benefits, arguing that the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) erred by denying, as untimely, her request for reconsideration of an adverse decision. Because Christensen filed her request for reconsideration after the applicable 20-day statutory deadline, the ULJ properly dismissed the request for reconsideration and, therefore, we affirm.

2. Christensen began working as a graphic designer at respondent Browntown Design LLC in June 2018. On April 7, 2021, Christensen delivered a letter of resignation to Browntown in which she stated, "I believe there is a better fit out there for both of us," and that her final date of employment would be April 21.

3. After resigning, Christensen applied for unemployment benefits with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Christensen explained that her "reason for quitting" was her post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the "accumulation of stress [which] was causing concerning symptoms," such as "an acute pain in the center of [her] chest."

4. On June 17, 2021, DEED determined that Christensen was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she quit her employment without a medical necessity and did not request a reasonable accommodation before submitting her letter of resignation. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(7) (2020) (requiring an unemployment-benefits applicant to notify the employer of a medical condition and request reasonable accommodation to be eligible for benefits).

5. Christensen timely appealed DEED's determination and the ULJ held a hearing. On August 18, 2021, the ULJ issued a written order upholding the initial determination of ineligibility. The order stated that "[u]nder Minnesota Statute 268.105, subdivision 2, this decision will be final unless a request for reconsideration is filed with the unemployment law judge on or before Tuesday, September 7, 2021." The order further provided that Christensen could file a request for reconsideration "by logging in to [her] account at www.uimn.org, by fax, or by mail (fax number and address are listed at the bottom of this page)."

6. Christensen filed a request for reconsideration six days after the deadline, on September 13. In her request for reconsideration, Christensen acknowledged that her filing was late, but explained that it was late because her catalytic converter was stolen and she needed to prioritize the repairs so that [she] could be available for . . . work"; she has "PTSD and any stressful situations can make [her] physically ill with headaches, body aches and depression"; and she has "been experiencing ill health due to excess stress."

7. On October 6, 2021, the ULJ issued a written order dismissing Christensen's request for reconsideration as untimely "[b]ecause Christensen did not file [her] appeal by the statutory deadline," therefore "the decision became final," and the ULJ "has no jurisdiction to address the merits of her case."

8. In this appeal, Christensen argues that she "has a valid reason for [the] appeal to be late," and thus, this court should consider the merits of her case.

9. When a ULJ dismisses an appeal as untimely, the only question before this court is whether the ULJ erred in doing so; we do not consider the merits of the appeal. Christgau v. Fine, 27 N.W.2d 193, 199 (Minn. 1947). "An agency decision to dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law, which we review de novo." Kennedy v. Am. Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 739 (Minn.App. 2006) (citing Stottler v. Meyers Printing Co., 602 N.W.2d 916, 918 (Minn.App. 1999)).

10. After the ULJ has issued a decision in a timely administrative appeal of an initial DEED determination of ineligibility, "[a]ny party, or the commissioner, may within 20 calendar days of the sending of the unemployment law judge's decision . . . file a request for reconsideration asking the judge to reconsider that decision." Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(a) (2020).

11. But if the request for reconsideration is untimely, "[t]he unemployment law judge must issue a decision dismissing the request for reconsideration as untimely if the judge decides the request for reconsideration was not filed within 20 calendar days after the sending of the decision." Id., subd. 2(f) (emphasis added). Thus, an applicant's untimeliness prevents the ULJ from considering the merits of the applicant's argument for eligibility at that stage of the agency proceedings.

12. Christensen does not dispute that she filed her request for reconsideration six days after the deadline. Thus, her request for reconsideration was untimely. Therefore, the ULJ did not err by dismissing the request for reconsideration. Id.; Kennedy, 714 N.W.2d at 739-40. In light of that conclusion, we may not consider the merits of Christensen's argument that the ULJ erred by upholding the initial determination that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits. Christgau, 27 N.W.2d at 199.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The ULJ's order is affirmed.

2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.