Opinion
A21-1375 A21-1579
07-11-2022
In the Matter of: Doua Thao.
Department of Employment and Economic Development File Nos. 43460001-3, 46216822-2, 46216824-2, 46216829-2
Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Bryan, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jeffrey Bryan Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In this certiorari appeal, relator Doua Thao seeks review of decisions of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) regarding his eligibility for unemployment benefits. In April 2020, Thao applied for unemployment benefits through respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). Thao sought benefits for Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief and the Economic Security Act (CARES Act).
2. Thao's employment ended in February 2020 for reasons unrelated to the COVID-19 pandemic. Thao was homeless and stayed at a shelter home with his girlfriend and five children. Three of Thao's children attended school and his youngest two children were infants.
3. At the beginning of the pandemic, Thao's three school-aged children transitioned from in-person learning to distance learning starting March 15, 2020. The school year ended in June 2020. The school-aged children did not attend summer school. School resumed in September 2020 with distance learning. The children were on a break from school during the last week of December 2020 and the first few days of January 2021. The children began spring break at the beginning of April 2021. When spring break ended, the children had the option to return to in-person learning.
4. Following a hearing, the ULJ determined that Thao was eligible for PUA benefits only during dates his children's school was closed because of the pandemic. These dates did not include "summer 2020, winter break, spring break [2021], and the period after spring break by which time Thao's children were allowed to return to in person learning." Accordingly, the ULJ determined that Thao was eligible for PUA benefits from March 15, 2020, through June 13, 2020; September 6, 2020, through December 26, 2020; and January 3, 2021, through April 3, 2021.
5. Thao requested reconsideration, arguing that he should be eligible for PUA benefits during all relevant periods. In support of his request for reconsideration, Thao submitted a letter from his shelter home, which said that Thao's children participated in a childcare program connected with the shelter, the program shut down in March 2020 because of the pandemic, and the program had not reopened. The ULJ denied Thao's request for reconsideration.
6. On appeal, Thao argues that the ULJ erred by determining that he was not eligible for PUA benefits and not fully developing facts regarding the closure of the childcare program. When reviewing a ULJ's decision, we may affirm the decision or remand for further proceedings. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2020). We may also reverse or modify the ULJ's decision when the relator's substantial rights have been prejudiced for various reasons. Id.
7. The CARES Act authorizes PUA payments to covered individuals. 15 U.S.C. § 9021 (2020). An individual is eligible for PUA benefits if he "is not eligible for regular compensation or extended benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic emergency unemployment compensation," and "is otherwise able to work and available for work within the meaning of applicable State law, except the individual is unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work" because of one of several pandemic-related reasons. 15 U.S.C. § 9021(a)(3)(A). The ULJ here considered the pandemic-related reason listed under paragraph (dd): "a child or other person in the household for which the individual has primary caregiving responsibility is unable to attend school or another facility that is closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency and such school or facility care is required for the individual to work." Id. (a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(dd).
8. The sole requirement for eligibility at issue here is whether, for purposes of paragraph (dd), Thao was unable to work because of the closure of his children's "school or another facility." We review an administrative agency's interpretation and application of federal statutes, including the CARES Act, de novo. In re Muse, 956 N.W.2d 1, 3 (Minn.App. 2021).
9. The United States Department of Labor published a letter, along with six subsequent changes to the letter, to provide guidance on administering the PUA program. See U.S. Dep't of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20 (Apr. 5, 2020) (UIPL 16-20). UIPL 16-20 explains that, for purposes of paragraph (dd), "After the 2019-2020 school year was originally scheduled to end, a school is no longer considered closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency." UIPL 16-20, Change 1, at I-10. During school breaks, "parents should rely on their customary summer arrangements for caring for their children." Id. The UIPL guidance further provides, "if the facility that the individual relies on to provide summer care for the child is also closed as a direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency, he or she may continue to qualify for PUA" under paragraph (dd). Id.
10. The ULJ determined that Thao met the requirements of paragraph (dd) only during those periods of time when his children's school was closed or practicing distance learning during the pandemic. The ULJ did not consider, however, whether Thao was eligible under paragraph (dd) because of the closure of another childcare facility during school breaks. The ULJ also did not consider whether Thao's two youngest children, who were not school-aged, were affected by the closure of the childcare facility.
11. Under our general authority when reviewing a ULJ's decision, we may "remand the case for further proceedings." Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d). This authority to remand is separate from our authority to reverse or modify the ULJ's decision if the relator's substantial rights are prejudiced by the decision. See id. At oral argument, DEED conceded that it would be appropriate for this court to remand this case for additional development of the record.
12. Given DEED's concessions at oral argument and the lack of development of the record about the closure of other childcare facilities, we remand this case for further development of the record. Because we remand under our general authority, we need not address Thao's arguments that his substantial rights were prejudiced because the UL J failed to develop all relevant facts and denied his request for reconsideration. On remand, Thao may present evidence showing that he meets the eligibility requirements of paragraph (dd) because of the closure of other childcare facilities for any of his children, during any relevant period. Thao also argues that the ULJ did not explain why DEED used multiple issue identification numbers for his case, develop his weekly benefit amount, or explain how DEED determined the amount of his overpayment. Thao may raise these concerns with the ULJ and DEED on remand.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ULJ's decision is reversed, and the matter is remanded.
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.