Opinion
A20-0978
02-10-2021
Finbarr McCarthy, Relator, v. Life Fitness LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 38605850-3 Considered and decided by Worke, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Smith, Tracy M., Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In March 2020, relator Finbarr McCarthy applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). When he applied, he indicated that respondent employer Life Fitness LLC would pay him "COVID 19" payments "until at least July 2020."
2. On April 9, 2020, DEED sent McCarthy a determination of ineligibility, stating that his weekly unemployment benefits would be reduced by the amount he received from his employer. DEED notified McCarthy of his right to appeal, and informed him that the "determination will become final unless an appeal is filed by Wednesday, April 29, 2020."
3. On May 19, 2020, McCarthy filed an appeal, arguing that the determination should be reversed because he did not receive pay from his employer from March 27 to April 10 because he had been furloughed. He asserted that he "made a mistake, filing [his] original claim and thought that [he] could sort this out over the phone." McCarthy was prompted to answer, "Why are you filing your appeal late?" McCarthy replied, "I was not aware of the appeal process on the website and I've been trying to connect with the unemployment office since (to sort this out). I did not get through, on the phone, (busy signal), until this morning. I was advised to file an appeal."
4. On May 20, 2020, an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissed McCarthy's appeal as untimely. The ULJ stated that the determination mailed to McCarthy "clearly stated that it would be final unless" McCarthy filed an appeal by April 29, 2020. (Emphasis omitted.) Because McCarthy did not file an appeal until May 19, 2020, it was untimely, and the determination had become final by operation of the law.
5. McCarthy promptly filed a request for reconsideration, indicating that when he realized his mistake in his original filing, he tried to contact DEED by phone, but could not get through until May 19. During this phone call, he was told to file an appeal. He said that this was the first time that he was made aware of the appeal process.
6. On July 1, 2020, the ULJ affirmed the dismissal because the determination was mailed to McCarthy's address on file and it "clearly stated it would become final unless an appeal was filed by April 29, 2020," but McCarthy did not file an appeal until May 19, 2020.
7. On July 22, 2020, McCarthy appealed to this court by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari, challenging the ULJ's dismissal of his appeal as untimely. We review de novo whether the ULJ properly dismissed an appeal as untimely. Godbout v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 827 N.W.2d 799, 802 (Minn. App. 2013). When a ULJ dismisses an appeal as untimely, the only question before us is whether the ULJ erred in dismissing the appeal, and we cannot address the merits of the appeal. See Christgau v. Fine, 27 N.W.2d 193, 199 (Minn. 1947).
8. "A determination . . . of ineligibility is final unless an appeal is filed . . . within 20 calendar days after sending." Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) (2020). We strictly construe the statutory deadlines governing eligibility appeals. See Semanko v. Dep't of Emp. Servs., 244 N.W.2d 663, 666 (Minn. 1976). The statutory deadline for an appeal is "absolute" and has no exceptions. Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72, 73 (Minn. App. 1984). When an appeal is not timely filed it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 29 (Minn. App. 2012).
9. McCarthy does not claim that he filed a timely appeal. Indeed, he admits that he filed an untimely appeal, but claims that he inadvertently made an error when he filed his initial claim for benefits and DEED should have assisted in correcting this error considering the "extraordinary times, due to the COVID pandemic."
10. While we are sympathetic of the circumstances and the troubles McCarthy encountered in completing his application for benefits and again in attempting to contact DEED, the finality of the determination is by operation of the law. See id. McCarthy's untimely filing divested the ULJ of jurisdiction to consider the merits of his appeal. See Cole, 347 N.W.2d at 73. And we do not have the authority to grant equitable relief regardless of the existence of mitigating circumstances. Id. Because McCarthy's appeal was submitted after the deadline, the ULJ was required to dismiss it as untimely.
11. McCarthy also argues that, in a separate proceeding, a ULJ issued a decision that McCarthy did not receive COVID pay during the week beginning April 12, 2020. But the record does not include information regarding a second appeal. And any challenges to the determination of ineligibility should have been raised in McCarthy's first appeal, which was dismissed as untimely. See Rowe v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 704 N.W.2d 191, 196 (Minn. App. 2005) ("Once the ULJ's decision [is] final, the entire department . . . lack[s] jurisdiction to consider the matter further."). The only issue before us is whether the ULJ properly dismissed McCarthy's appeal as untimely. And based on the statutory filing deadline, the ULJ correctly dismissed McCarthy's appeal.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ULJ's dismissal is affirmed.
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: February 10, 2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Denise D. Reilly