Opinion
A22-0139
08-23-2022
In the Matter of: Brandon Lee Siems.
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 48079134
Considered and decided by Reilly, Presiding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge. [*]
ORDER OPINION
Peter M. Reyes, Jr. Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Relator Brandon Lee Siems worked for McDonald's. From January 2020 to February 2021, McDonald's reduced relator's hours to approximately four to five hours per week. Relator did not apply for unemployment benefits during that time. In February 2021, McDonald's allowed relator to increase his employment hours, and relator then worked approximately 35 hours per week. McDonald's terminated relator's employment on May 19, 2021.
2. On May 31, relator applied for an unemployment benefits account with respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED), requesting to backdate his account to May 23. DEED approved relator's unemployment benefits account effective May 23, 2021. Relator then requested that DEED further backdate his benefits account to January 5, 2020, when McDonald's reduced his employment hours.
3. In early November, DEED issued relator a notice of ineligibility, determining that, because relator had not applied for benefits until May 31, 2021, he is ineligible to receive backdated benefits from January 5, 2020, through May 22, 2021. Relator administratively appealed this determination to DEED. In late November, an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) held an evidentiary hearing. Following that hearing, the ULJ determined that relator was ineligible to backdate his unemployment benefits account to a date before May 23, 2021, under Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(a) (2020). Relator filed a request for reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed its previous determination. Relator appeals by a writ of certiorari.
4. We review the ULJ's interpretation of the unemployment statutes and the ultimate question of an applicant's eligibility for benefits de novo. Gonzalez Diaz v. Three Rivers Cmty. Action, Inc., 917 N.W.2d 813, 816 (Minn.App. 2018). We may reverse or remand a ULJ's decision if relator's substantial rights were prejudiced because the decision was affected by an error of law, was unsupported by substantial evidence, or was arbitrary or capricious. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4)-(6) (2020).
5. A person may be eligible to receive unemployment benefits only if they "ha[ve] filed an application for unemployment benefits and established a benefit account." Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 1(1) (2020). "An applicant may be eligible to receive unemployment benefits for any week if . . . the applicant has filed a continued request for unemployment benefits for that week . . . ." Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(1) (2020). "An applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits for any week . . . that occurs before the effective date of a benefit account . . . ." Id., subd. 2(1) (2020). "An application for unemployment benefits is effective the Sunday of the calendar week that the application was filed." Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(a).
6. An effective date of an application for unemployment benefits can only be adjusted in limited circumstances. An application “may be backdated one calendar week before the Sunday of the week the application was actually filed.” Id. Also, if a person attempted to apply for unemployment benefits, but DEED prevented them from applying, “the application is effective the Sunday of the calendar week the individual first attempted to file an application.” Id.; see Bukkuri v. Dep't of Emp. & Econ. Dev., 729 N.W.2d 20, 21-23 (Minn.App. 2007) (concluding that ULJ did not err because statute generally limits backdating to one week and applicant did not satisfy statutory exception allowing additional backdating).
7. Relator applied for unemployment benefits on May 31, 2021. DEED determined that relator was eligible to backdate his benefit account to May 23, 2021, which is one calendar week before the Sunday of the week relator applied for unemployment. Relator does not argue that he applied for unemployment before May 31. Nor does he argue t hat he had tried to apply but that DEED prevented him from doing so.
8. Relator argues only that, notwithstanding the statute, it would be just to render him eligible to "claim some [benefits]" backdating before May 23 because he was unaware that he could apply for unemployment based on his reduced hours of employment. While we are sympathetic to the basis for relator's request, this court's review is limited to whether the ULJ committed an error of law, made findings unsupported by the evidence, or made an arbitrary or capricious determination. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4)-(6).
In its brief, DEED references the substantial compliance test from In re Murack, 957 N.W.2d 124, 130-31 (Minn.App. 2021) (stating that under March 16, 2020 executive order, applicants need not strictly comply with statutory timeline and remanding for ULJ to apply substantial-compliance factors to determine whether relator substantially complied). But the substantial-compliance test does not apply here. Nor did relator raise it as an issue. As a result, we need not address it.
9. Because the ULJ's findings are supported by the law and the undisputed facts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious, we conclude that the ULJ did not err in its determination.
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.
[*] Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.