Opinion
A21-1093
03-23-2022
Jerrod Feist, Relator, v. City of Rogers, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Department of Employment and Economic Security File No. 45209845-3
Considered and decided by Gaïtas, Presiding Judge; Frisch, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge.
Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
ORDER OPINION
JILL FLASKAMP HALBROOKS, JUDGE
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Respondent City of Rogers employed relator Jarrod Feist as a part-time firefighter. The position required Feist to have a valid Minnesota Class D driver's license. City policy allows for a firefighter who loses a Class D driver's license to be placed on unpaid-leave status for up to six months.
2. Feist's Class D driver's license was revoked following his arrest for DWI. Feist informed the city of the revocation and asked that he be placed on unpaid-leave status. The city granted his request and placed him on unpaid leave for six months. Both Feist and the city understood that Feist could and would return to work within that six-month period if his Class D driver's license was reinstated.
3. Feist then applied for unemployment benefits. Respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) issued a determination of ineligibility to Feist, concluding that Feist was ineligible for unemployment benefits because "[Feist] is capable of performing available work with the [city], but has chosen not to work," and his leave of absence was, therefore, voluntary under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13a(a) (2020). Feist appealed the determination of ineligibility and appeared for a virtual hearing before an unemployment-law judge (ULJ). The ULJ affirmed the determination of ineligibility, concluding that the "preponderance of the evidence shows that Feist was on a voluntary leave of absence." The ULJ went on to explain that "[b]ecause the City of Rogers had work for Feist which he was physically capable of performing, Feist's leave of absence was considered voluntary. This applies even if Feist cannot work as a volunteer firefighter due to not having a valid driver's license."
4. Feist requested reconsideration of the ULJ's decision, arguing that his leave of absence was involuntary. A different ULJ concluded that the decision was "factually and legally correct" and affirmed. Feist appeals, again arguing his leave of absence was involuntary. On appeal, DEED agrees with Feist and requests reversal based on its determination that the ULJ's decision is legally incorrect.
5. A person "on a voluntary leave of absence is ineligible for unemployment benefits for the duration of the leave of absence." Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13a(a). But a person "on an involuntary leave of absence is not ineligible under this subdivision." Id. By statute, "[a] leave of absence is voluntary when work that the applicant can then perform is available with the applicant's employer but the applicant chooses not to work." Id. "Statutory interpretation of the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law is a question of law that appellate courts review de novo." Yusuf v. Masterson Pers., Inc., 880 N.W.2d 600, 603 (Minn.App. 2016). If a statute is unambiguous, a reviewing court applies the words according to their plain meaning and engages in no further construction. Reiter v. Kiffmeyer, 721 N.W.2d 908, 910 (Minn. 2006).
6. We addressed the language of subdivision 13a(a) and concluded that it is unambiguous in Scheeler v. Sartell Water Controls, Inc., 730 N.W.2d 285 (Minn.App. 2007). We held that the relator in Scheeler was on a voluntary leave of absence when "he could have continued work if he wanted to but he signed up for" the leave of absence and "[i]f relator had not signed up he would have stayed working." Id. at 288. Thus, "[b]ecause work was available with respondent [employer] and relator chose not to work, he was on a voluntary leave of absence within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13a(a), and is not eligible for benefits for that period." Id.
7. Here, we conclude that the ULJ erred because Feist neither had work available with the city nor chose not to work. Under the city's policy, a Class D driver's license is required for a person to work for the city as a part-time firefighter. After Feist's license was revoked, he no longer met the city's employment requirements for his position. Therefore, the city did not have work available for Feist. As a result, Feist's leave of absence was an involuntary leave of absence, and the ULJ erred in concluding otherwise.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ULJ's order is reversed.
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.