Opinion
A21-1586
08-23-2022
Lynn Angell, Relator, v. Kwik Trip Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 43444888-3
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Reyes, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
DENISE D. REILLY, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Relator Lynn Angell was employed by respondent Kwik Trip Inc. as a guest service leader. Kwik Trip discharged Angell on August 31, 2020, after Angell allegedly violated Kwik Trip policies by removing cash from the store register to cash a personal check and later was dishonest to the store leader about her conduct. After her termination, Angell applied for unemployment benefits through respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED).
2. A DEED administrative clerk issued a determination of ineligibility on October 22, 2020. The determination stated that Angell was ineligible for unemployment benefits because there was "no evidence" that she was able to perform paid employment. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subds. 1(4), 15 (2020) (providing that, to be eligible for unemployment benefits, an applicant must be "available for suitable employment," which is defined as "an applicant is ready, willing, and able to accept suitable employment"). The determination stated that Angell was not eligible "until [she] is able to perform some gainful employment and is ready and willing to seek and accept a job."
3. Angell appealed the determination of ineligibility and a hearing was held before an unemployment-law judge (ULJ). At the beginning of the hearing, the ULJ explained that the purpose of the hearing was to determine whether Angell was "available to accept suitable employment" and "actively seeking suitable employment." See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(4), (5) (2020) (providing that, for an applicant to be eligible for unemployment benefits, she must be available for and actively seeking suitable employment). After the hearing, the ULJ issued a decision on May 13, 2022. The ULJ determined that Angell was not actively seeking suitable employment and therefore was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Angell requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the decision as factually and legally correct. That decision now comes before us on appeal by certiorari.
4. On December 22, 2020, a DEED administrative clerk issued a separate determination of ineligibility relating to Angell's employment with Kwik Trip. That determination stated that Angell was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subds. 4 (providing that an applicant is not eligible for unemployment benefits if she was discharged for employment misconduct), 6(a) (defining "employment misconduct" as "any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job, that is a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee") (2020). The determination of ineligibility stated that Kwik Trip discharged Angell for theft, which apparently was based on Kwik Trip's representations to DEED that Angell removed cash from the register to cash a personal check. The determination stated that it would become final unless an appeal was filed by January 11, 2021.
5. Angell appealed the December 22, 2020 determination of ineligibility after the January 11, 2021 appeal period had passed. As a result, the ULJ dismissed the appeal as untimely. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(c) (2020) ("The unemployment law judge must issue a decision dismissing the appeal as untimely if the judge decides the appeal was not filed within 20 calendar days after the sending of the determination."). As a result, the determination of ineligibility became final.
6. In this appeal, Angell challenges the ULJ's decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was not actively seeking suitable employment. DEED asserts that we should dismiss this appeal because it is moot. We will deem an issue moot if we are "unable to grant effectual relief." In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989). "An appeal should be dismissed as moot when a decision on the merits is no longer necessary or an award of effective relief is no longer possible." Dean v. City of Winona, 868 N.W.2d 1, 5 (Minn. 2015).
7. We cannot grant effective relief in this appeal because, no matter how we resolve the issue before us, Angell does not meet all the eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits. For an applicant to be entitled to unemployment benefits, the applicant must meet several requirements, including: (1) the applicant has applied for unemployment benefits and established a benefit account; (2) "the applicant has not been held ineligible for unemployment benefits under section 268.095 because of a quit or discharge"; and (3) "the applicant has met all of the ongoing eligibility requirements under section 268.085." Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 1(1)-(3) (2020). The only decision at issue in this appeal is the ULJ's decision determining that Angell was not actively seeking suitable employment. This determination relates to the third requirement-that Angell meet all eligibility requirements under Minn. Stat. § 268.085. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(5) (requiring applicant to be actively seeking suitable employment).
8. This appeal does not affect the separate December 22, 2020 determination that Angell was discharged for employment misconduct. That determination relates to the second eligibility requirement-that Angell not be held ineligible for unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.095 because of a quit or discharge. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 4 (providing that applicant is ineligible if discharged for employment misconduct). That determination has become final, and this court lacks jurisdiction to alter that decision in this appeal. As a result, even if we were to reverse the ULJ's determination that Angell was not actively seeking employment, the determination that Angell was discharged for employment misconduct still stands. Regardless of our decision in this appeal, Angell is not eligible for unemployment benefits.
9. Because a decision by this court would afford no effective relief, the appeal is moot. See Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 5.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The appeal is dismissed.
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.
Dated: August 22, 2022