Opinion
22-1691
09-27-2023
AUSTIN DAVID CAREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. IOWA EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD, Defendant-Appellee.
Austin D. Carey, Riceville, self-represented appellant. Rick Autry of the Employment Appeal Board, Des Moines, for appellee.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, David M. Porter, Judge.
A former employee appeals from the dismissal of his petition for judicial review following denial of unemployment benefits.
Austin D. Carey, Riceville, self-represented appellant.
Rick Autry of the Employment Appeal Board, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Schumacher, P.J., and Chicchelly and Buller, JJ.
BULLER, JUDGE
Austin David Carey applied for unemployment benefits after his employer, a grain company, fired him based on a suspicion that he was using drugs while employed in a safety-sensitive position. Iowa Workforce Development determined Carey was eligible for benefits, but the employer appealed to an administrative law judge (ALJ). The ALJ set the matter for phone hearing, where the employer participated but Carey did not. The ALJ found Carey engaged in workplace misconduct and denied unemployment benefits. Carey appealed to the Employment Appeal Board (EAB), which affirmed. Carey sought rehearing, which the EAB denied, and then petitioned for judicial review in the Polk County District Court.
While Carey's petition for judicial review was timely, he admits he failed to serve the grain company with a copy of the petition. The EAB moved to dismiss, urging this failure to serve notice was a jurisdictional defect. The district court granted the motion to dismiss following a reported hearing. This appeal follows.
On our review for correction of errors at law, we affirm. See Iowa R. App. P. 6.907. The EAB correctly argued, and the district court correctly ruled, that failing to serve the employer when petitioning for judicial review of unemployment benefits deprives the courts of jurisdiction. See Iowa Code § 10A.601(7) (2021) (providing that unemployment appeals are subject to judicial review pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.19); id. § 17A.19(2) (requiring service on "all parties of record" and providing that the service requirement "shall be jurisdictional"). This ruling aligns with existing case law. See Dawson v. Iowa Merit Emp. Comm'n, 303 N.W.2d 158, 160 (Iowa 1981) ("Because a copy of the petition was admittedly not mailed to respondent within ten days of its filing, the district court did not acquire jurisdiction of the case."); New Direction in Sales, Inc. v. Emp. Appeal Bd., No. 111901, 2013 WL 106006, at *1-2 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2013) ("Failure to strictly comply with this statutory [service of notice requirement] deprived the district court of appellate jurisdiction over the case.").
We also affirm the district court's refusal to substitute the rules of civil procedure for the jurisdictional requirements expressly set by the General Assembly. See Iowa Code § 10A.601(7); Sharp v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 492 N.W.2d 668, 670 (Iowa 1992) ("[T]he procedure for timely filing a petition for judicial review from an Employment Appeal Board decision is not governed by the rules of civil procedure but is instead governed by Iowa Code section 17A.19.").
To the extent we can discern a viable argument from his pro se brief, Carey seems to claim that the EAB's decision about his unemployment benefits was not a "contested case." Carey is correct that section 17A.19(2) only applies to "review of agency action in a contested case." But the denial of unemployment benefits by an ALJ and appeal of the same to the EAB are "contested case" hearings. See Iowa Code § 96.6(3)(a) (providing that hearings in unemployment appeals "shall be conducted pursuant to the provisions of chapter 17A relating to hearings for contested cases"); see also id. § 10A.601(1) ("A full-time employment appeal board is created within the department of inspections and appeals to hear and decide contested cases ...."). This argument provides no basis for relief, and we reject it.
The district court did not err in granting the EAB's motion to dismiss.
AFFIRMED.