Opinion
A20-1030
04-14-2021
LaSonderia Rogers, Relator, v. Doherty Staffing Solutions Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
ORDER OPINION
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 37799091-3 Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Gaïtas, Judge.
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. In April 2019, relator LaSonderia Rogers accepted a position with a staffing company, Doherty Staffing Solutions Inc. Doherty assigned Rogers to work as a recruiter and clerical associate for its client Comprehensive Research Group. Rogers worked in that position until her assignment ended in early December 2019.
2. Before completing her assignment, Rogers emailed Doherty to inquire about positions available following her current assignment. Doherty replied with information about ten available positions. Rogers asked whether there were opportunities closer to her home, and Doherty responded that the opportunities already provided were not that far away. Doherty also sent Rogers information about an additional position closer to her home.
3. Rogers took no action regarding the opportunities Doherty provided and later applied for unemployment benefits when her assignment ended in December. Respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that Rogers was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she had "quit" her employment with Doherty "without a good reason" and denied her application.
4. Rogers appealed DEED's determination and requested an evidentiary hearing before an unemployment-law judge (ULJ). During the resulting January 2020 evidentiary hearing, Rogers and two Doherty employees testified, and various exhibits were submitted into evidence. Following the hearing, the ULJ issued written findings of fact and a determination confirming DEED's decision to deny unemployment benefits.
5. The ULJ reasoned that, based on the testimony, Rogers had quit her employment with Doherty by unreasonably refusing suitable employment opportunities. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(e) (2020). The ULJ also found that Rogers signed an acknowledgement form upon hire putting her on notice that refusing employment opportunities, without good cause, would render her ineligible for unemployment benefits.
6. Included within the ULJ's written decision was an advisory that informed Rogers of her right to request reconsideration of the decision "on or before Monday, February 24, 2020," and stating that failure to do so would render the decision final under Minnesota Statutes section 268.105, subdivision 2 (2020).
7. Rogers requested reconsideration of the ULJ's decision on April 30, 2020, arguing that she now "requalified" for benefits and that she should have been allowed to subpoena additional documents to support her initial appeal. The ULJ found the request untimely and dismissed her appeal because there was no legal authority permitting reconsideration of a decision after the deadline.
8. In August 2020, Rogers filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with this court, disputing the ULJ's dismissal of her appeal as untimely.
9. Whether a ULJ correctly dismissed an appeal as untimely is a question of law that we review de novo. Godbout v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev., 827 N.W.2d 799, 802 (Minn. App. 2013). In such cases, our review is limited to one question: whether the worker's appeal was truly untimely and therefore correctly dismissed by the ULJ. See Christgau v. Fine, 27 N.W.2d 193, 199 (Minn. 1947). We are accordingly unable to examine the merits of a worker's appeal to the ULJ in these circumstances. See id.
10. When a worker fails to request reconsideration within the 20-day statutory timeframe, the ULJ must dismiss an appeal as untimely. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(a), (f); Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 29 (Minn. App. 2012). Failure to adhere to this deadline will divest the ULJ of jurisdiction to consider a case on the merits. Kennedy v. Am. Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Minn. App. 2006). Moreover, "there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period." Id. The 20-day time limit is therefore "absolute and unambiguous." Semanko v. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 244 N.W.2d 663, 666 (Minn. 1976); see also Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72, 73-74 (Minn. App. 1984) (declining to grant equitable relief where appeal was untimely).
11. Rogers appears to concede that her request for reconsideration was untimely under the statutory deadline. However, she asserts that an emergency executive order issued by Governor Walz to address the COVID-19 pandemic tolled the 20-day deadline for requesting reconsideration and therefore her request was not late. See Emerg. Executive Order No. 20-01, Declaring a Peacetime Emergency & Coordinating Minnesota's Strategy to Protect Minnesotans from COVID-19 (Mar. 13, 2020) (EEO 20-01).
12. The record confirms that Rogers's opportunity to request reconsideration lapsed on February 24, 2020, and she failed to seek reconsideration within that timeframe despite having notice. After February 24, 2020, the ULJ's decision became final. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1a(a), 2(a) (2020). The record thus supports the conclusion that dismissal of Rogers's appeal was both necessary and proper.
13. Furthermore, Rogers's reliance on executive orders issued by Governor Walz in relation to COVID-19 is unavailing. Rogers specifically points to EEO 20-01, although it appears she likely intended for us to consider EEO 20-05, which directly addresses unemployment matters. See Emerg. Executive Order No. 20-05, Providing Immediate Relief to Employers and Unemployed Workers During the COVID-19 Peacetime Emergency (Mar. 16, 2020). However, these executive orders do not apply to Rogers because her February 24, 2020 deadline to file for reconsideration had already come and gone before the executive orders even existed. Thus, the executive orders, which were filed and became effective in mid-March, are of no consequence here.
14. In sum, Rogers requested reconsideration more than 80 days after the statutory deadline and therefore the ULJ was obligated to dismiss her appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 2(a), (e).
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ULJ's order 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: 4/14/2021
BY THE COURT
/s/_________
Judge Theodora Gaïtas