Opinion
A23-0286
11-08-2023
Ronald Thompson, Relator, v. Jones Lang LaSalle Americas, Inc., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 49201185-2
Considered and decided by Bryan, Presiding Judge; Worke, Judge; and Ross, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jeffrey M. Bryan, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. On November 8, 2022, respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that appellant Ronald Thompson was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Thompson appealed DEED's determination, and an evidentiary hearing was scheduled.
2. At the evidentiary hearing, Thompson testified that he quit his employment with respondent Jones Lang Lasalle (Lasalle) to move to New York to be with his children after their mother suffered a seizure. When asked whether he "quit [his] job with Jones Lang Lasalle," Thompson responded "yes." Thompson also explained that he quit by giving Lasalle notice on October 10, 2022, of his decision to quit. Thompson testified that he left for New York that same day. Thompson also testified that he emailed Lasalle on October 27, 2022, requesting-for the first time-that Lasalle "hold" his position or assist him to find comparable employment in western New York.
3. The unemployment law judge (ULJ) admitted into evidence Thompson's October 13, 2022 responses to DEED's requests for information. In these responses, Thompson stated that his employment ended on October 8, that he told Lasalle he quit because of "Family Hardship," and that he did not give Lasalle advance notice that he was quitting. Importantly, DEED's requests for information asked the following question: "Did you request accommodation? Such as a leave of absence, a change in job duties or hours of work, etc." Thompson responded "No" to this question. DEED's requests for information also asked Thompson to explain why he did not request any accommodation, and Thompson responded, "[Lasalle] has no positions in Western, NY."
4. At the hearing, Thompson's counsel generally argued that Thompson qualified for the loss-of-childcare exception set forth in Minnesota Statutes section 268.095, subdivision 1(8) (2022). To qualify for the exception, the statute requires proof of the following: "(1) the applicant lost childcare; (2) the loss of childcare caused the applicant to quit; (3) the applicant made reasonable efforts to obtain other childcare and requested time off or an accommodation from the employer; and (4) those efforts were unsuccessful." Gonzalez Diaz v. Three Rivers Cmty. Action, Inc., 917 N.W.2d 813, 81617 (Minn.App. 2018); see Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(8). As this court noted in Gonzalez Diaz, the loss-of-childcare exception "requires employees to request an accommodation before quitting." 917 N.W.2d at 817-18.
5. The ULJ issued its findings of fact and decision determining that Thompson was ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. The ULJ found that Thompson quit his job on October 10 and that, because Thompson failed to request any accommodation from Lasalle before quitting, he did not satisfy the loss-of-childcare exception.
6. Thompson asked the ULJ to reconsider its decision. His request stated, in its entirety, "I believe that I had good cause to return to NY." He did not include any additional evidence or information. In an order on reconsideration, the ULJ affirmed the prior findings of fact and decision, explaining that although Thompson had "good cause to move so that he could be near his children[,] . . . Thompson's quit makes him ineligible for unemployment benefits because his situation does not fit an exception to ineligibility under Minnesota law." Thompson appeals by writ of certiorari.
7. On appeal, Thompson challenges two factual findings: that he quit on October 10 and that he did not request any accommodation before quitting. We conclude that Thompson forfeited appellate review of both factual findings.
Thompson argues that he was not required to make these arguments to the ULJ in order to obtain appellate review. Contrary to this argument, we have previously declined to address issues that were not raised before the ULJ, and nothing in the statute suggests that the challenges raised on appeal are not waivable or forfeitable. See, e.g., Peterson v. Ne. Bank-Minneapolis, 805 N.W.2d 878, 883 (Minn.App. 2011) (declining to address an issue not raised before the ULJ).
8. This court does not consider issues that were not presented to and considered by the ULJ. Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (stating appellate courts generally must consider "only those issues that the record shows were presented and considered by the trial court" (quotation omitted)); see Peterson, 805 N.W.2d at 883 (applying Thiele in an unemployment-benefits appeal).
9. Thompson testified that he quit his job on October 10, 2022. The evidence also includes Thompson's responses to DEED's request for information, dated October 13, 2022, in which Thompson states that he quit with no advance notice to Lasalle and that he did not request any accommodation prior to quitting. At the evidentiary hearing before the ULJ, Thompson made no argument that he quit on some date after October 10. Likewise, Thompson made no argument that he requested any accommodation before quitting on October 10.
10. In addition, when Thompson requested reconsideration of the ULJ's ineligibility decision, he gave only one reason: he believed that he had "good cause to return to NY." Thompson did not dispute the factual finding that he quit on October 10, 2022, or the finding that he had made no request for accommodation prior to quitting. Indeed, even when making his arguments for the first time to this court, Thompson does not contend that he made a request for accommodation prior to October 10, and the record contains no evidence to support such a finding.
11. Because Thompson did not dispute at the evidentiary hearing or in his posthearing request for reconsideration either of two factual issues that he now attempts to contest on appeal, Thompson forfeited appellate review of those determinations.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ULJ's order on reconsideration 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.