Relator argues that the unemployment law judge (ULJ) improperly dismissed his appeal, which was postmarked 31 days after the department's initial disqualification determination. Because the statutory appeal period was 30 days and the department lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal that was postmarked after the appeal period, we affirm.

FACTS

Relator Theodis Kennedy applied for unemployment benefits after being discharged from his employment with respondent American Paper Recycling Corp. The department initially determined that relator was disqualified because the discharge was for employment misconduct. The mailing date of the determination of disqualification was July 20, 2005.

The determination of disqualification sent to relator included the department's findings, the determination, and the notice of the right to appeal. In all capital letters, the right to appeal stated that the determination will become final unless an appeal is filed within 30 calendar days from the mailing date. The notice also provided the mailing address for the appeals office and stated that, if mailed, the postmark was determinative of filing by mail. Relator sent a letter postmarked August 20, 2005, requesting an appeal.

The ULJ issued an order dismissing the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not filed within the time period required by law. The order also contained the procedure to request reconsideration. Relator asked for reconsideration in a letter, stating that he had mailed his appeal to a different address "not knowing that they relocated to another address." The ULJ found that the order of dismissal was factually and legally correct and affirmed the dismissal. Relator petitioned for a writ of certiorari.

ISSUE

Does the Department of Employment and Economic Development have jurisdiction over relator's appeal of its determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct when the appeal was postmarked one day after the appeal period had run?

ANALYSIS

An agency decision to dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law, which we review de novo. Stottler v. Meyers Printing Co., 602 N.W.2d 916, 918 (Minn.App. 1999); see also Harms v. Oak Meadows, 619 N.W.2d 201, 202 (Minn. 2000) (affirming dismissal for failure to timely serve petition for writ of certiorari on unemployment appeal).

Upon issuing a determination of disqualification for unemployment benefits, the department is required to send a notice to the applicant and employer by mail or electronic transmission. Minn.Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2 (2004). A determination of disqualification "shall be final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant or . . . employer within 30 calendar days after sending." Id., subd. 2(e). Here, the department's notice conspicuously stated that the mailing date was July 20, 2005, and, in all capital letters, set out the parties' right of appeal, consistent with the statute. The notice also provided the mailing address for the appeals office and stated that, if mailed, the postmark would be determinative of filing. Relator's appeal letter was postmarked August 20, 2005, 31 calendar days after the mailing date of the determination of disqualification.

Under prior unemployment statutes with shorter appeal periods, the statutory time limitations for appealing disqualification determinations were held to be absolute and unambiguous. Semanko v. Dep't of Employment Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 429-30, 244 N.W.2d 663, 666 (1976) (seven calendar days); Jackson v. Minn. Dep't of Manpower Servs., 296 Minn. 500, 501, 207 N.W.2d 62, 63 (1973) (same). Not only is the 30-calendar-day time limitation clear in the current statute, but also its content was conspicuously placed and unambiguously explained in the disqualification notice sent to relator. Although relator alleges that his appeal was initially timely mailed but to an old address, there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period. See Johnson v. Metro. Med. Ctr., 395 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn.App. 1986) (concluding that prior unemployment law provided no basis to toll appeal period). When an appeal from a disqualification determination is untimely, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

DECISION

The unemployment law judge properly dismissed relator's appeal as untimely.

Affirmed.

Summaries of

Kennedy v. American Paper Recycling Corp.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

May 30, 2006

714 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006)

holding that "[w]hen an appeal from a disqualification determination is untimely, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from ALOWONLE v. OPAL IN-HOME SERVICES

holding that appeal properly dismissed when filed one day late even though documents were mailed to old address

Summary of this case from Stewart v. Executive Affiliates, Inc.

concluding that because "there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period," an appeal filed one day late was untimely and properly dismissed

Summary of this case from Bremer v. Thomas Allen, Inc.

concluding that because "there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period," an appeal filed one day late was untimely and properly dismissed

Summary of this case from Abdi v. Midway Ford Co.

concluding that because "there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period," an appeal filed one day late was untimely and properly dismissed

Summary of this case from Modjeski v. Winona Mech., Inc.

concluding that ULJ "properly dismissed relator's appeal as untimely," noting that "there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period"

Summary of this case from Saulsberry v. St. Mary's Univ. of Minn.

concluding that an appeal filed one day late was untimely

Summary of this case from Conway v. Zachary Vex Effects, Ltd.

affirming dismissal of untimely appeal from ineligibility determination

Summary of this case from Thomsen v. Metes & Bounds Mgmt. Co.

affirming dismissal when appeal was filed on day 31 of 30-day appeal period

Summary of this case from Scheller v. Cragun Corp.

applying Semanko

Summary of this case from Williams v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev.

stating that statutory appeal period for challenging an eligibility determination is "absolute and unambiguous" and an untimely appeal "must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Browen v. Thompson Constr. of Princeton

giving de novo review to untimely appeal from Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development decision on eligibility for benefits

Summary of this case from Moynan v. Rehabcare Grp. E., Inc.

stating that statutory appeal period for challenging an eligibility determination is "absolute and unambiguous" and an untimely appeal "must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Moynan v. Rehabcare Grp. E., Inc.

stating that when "an appeal from [an ineligibility] determination is untimely, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Pettersen v. Taylor Truck Line, Inc.

stating that when "an appeal from [an ineligibility] determination is untimely, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Yohannes v. W. Air Chef, Inc.

stating that there are no exceptions to what was then a statutory 30-day appeal period

Summary of this case from Marzuq v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev.

stating that when appeal from disqualification determination is untimely, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction

Summary of this case from Dessin v. Shakopee Valley Ford, Inc.

stating that "[w]hen an appeal from [an ineligibility] determination is untimely, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction"

Summary of this case from Anderson v. Northwest Airlines

dismissing an appeal of a ULJ's decision when the appeal was postmarked 31 days after the mailing of the decision