From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wadena Cnty. v. Pete

Court of Appeals of Minnesota
May 9, 2022
No. A21-1027 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 9, 2022)

Opinion

A21-1027

05-09-2022

Wadena County, Relator, v. Michael Pete, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.


Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 41539094-3

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Cochran, Judge; and Cleary, Judge. [*]

ORDER OPINION

Jeanne M. Cochran Judge

BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:

1. Relator Wadena County (the county) employed respondent Michael Pete as a solid waste attendant beginning in 2009. In addition to working for the county, Pete owned a landscaping business. The county discharged Pete in June 2020 after he used county equipment to load free compost into his personal truck to take to his landscaping business, without paying for use of the county equipment.

2. On June 23, 2020, Pete applied for unemployment benefits through respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). 1 A DEED administrative clerk determined that Pete was ineligible for unemployment benefits because the county discharged him for employment misconduct. Pete appealed the determination of ineligibility, and a hearing was held before an unemployment-law judge (ULJ). After the hearing, the ULJ issued her findings of fact and decision, determining that Pete was discharged for reasons other than employment misconduct and therefore was eligible for unemployment benefits. The county requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the decision.

3. The county argues in this certiorari appeal that the ULJ erred by determining that Pete did not engage in employment misconduct and was eligible for benefits. DEED contends that the county's appeal should be dismissed as moot.

4. The mootness doctrine is based on the principle that appellate courts will decide only actual controversies. In re Schmidt, 443 N.W.2d 824, 826 (Minn. 1989). An appeal is 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). The mootness doctrine "implies a comparison between the relief demanded and the circumstances of the case at the time of decision in order to determine whether there is a live controversy that can be resolved." In re Application of Minnegasco, 565 N.W.2d 706, 710 (Minn. 1997). Questions of justiciability, including mootness, are questions of law, which we review de novo. Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 4.

5. We conclude that this appeal is moot because this court cannot grant any effective relief. State law limits this court's authority to grant relief in a case such as this one. Specifically, if a ULJ's decision "allows unemployment benefits . . . because of a quit 2 or discharge and the judge's decision is reversed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court of Minnesota, the applicant cannot be held ineligible for any of the benefits paid before the date of the court's reversal." Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 3a(c) (2020) (emphasis added). Rather, "the applicant may only be held ineligible for future unemployment benefits." Id., subd. 3a(c)(1). As a result, even if this court were to reverse the ULJ's determination of eligibility, this court does not have the authority to order Pete to repay the benefits that he already received. And, while Pete could be held ineligible for future benefits if this court were to reverse, such a decision would have no effect because Pete would not otherwise be eligible for future unemployment benefits related to his past employment with the county. See Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 2(b) (2020) (providing that, to establish a new benefit account after the expiration of a prior benefit account, "an applicant must have performed actual work in subsequent covered employment and have been paid wages in one or more completed calendar quarters that started after the effective date of the prior benefit account"). A decision by this court on the merits of this appeal therefore would not affect Pete's past or future right to benefits.

6. A decision by this court would also have no practical effect on the county in terms of the amount that the county pays for unemployment insurance. Under state law, there are two types of employers for unemployment-insurance purposes: taxpaying and reimbursing. Minn. Stat. §§ 268.045, subd. 1 (listing the two types of accounts that an employer can maintain), .47, subd. 1 (providing that unemployment benefits paid to an applicant are either used to compute the future tax rate of a taxpaying employer or charged to a reimbursing employer's account) (2020). State law further provides that this court's 3 reversal of a ULJ's decision allowing unemployment benefits affects only the computation of the future tax rate of a taxpaying employer. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 3a(c)(2); see also Minn. Stat. § 268.047, subds. 2, 3(3) (2020) (providing that unemployment benefits paid are not used to compute the future tax rate of a taxpaying employer when the applicant was discharged for employment misconduct, but not including a similar provision regarding ordinary employment misconduct for reimbursing employers). Because the county is a reimbursing employer, the county would not be affected by a reversal by this court. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 3a(c)(2). The county argues that it could elect to change its designation and become a taxpaying employer, in which case it could be impacted by the decision. See Minn. Stat. § 268.052, subd. 2 (2020) (explaining procedure for a reimbursing employer to elect to become a taxpaying employer). The possibility that the county might elect to change its designation is purely speculative. Thus, there are no collateral consequences that the county would face because of a decision by this court. 4

At oral argument, the county argued that another collateral consequence prevents this case from being moot: under the terms of Pete's employment contract with the county, Pete was entitled to payout of unused accrued leave benefits upon termination of his employment, if he was discharged for reasons other than misconduct. The county did not raise this argument in its appellate briefs, and this court generally does not consider arguments raised for the first time at oral argument. In re Civ. Commitment of Froehlich, 961 N.W.2d 248, 255 (Minn.App. 2021). And even if we addressed the argument on the merits, the record does not contain any evidence of Pete's accrued leave benefits to which he may have been entitled. Moreover, the determination of whether Pete committed employment misconduct under the unemployment statute would not be dispositive of whether he committed "misconduct" for purposes of his employment contract. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 5a (2020) ("No findings of fact or decision or order issued by an unemployment law judge may be held conclusive or binding or used as evidence in any separate or subsequent action in any other forum . . . regardless of whether the action involves the same or related parties or involves the same facts.").

7. The county also argues that this appeal falls under an exception to the mootness doctrine because the issue is capable of repetition but evades review. "An issue is capable of repetition yet evades review if it does not remain a live controversy until the completion of appellate review but due to its nature may reoccur." In re McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d 326, 328 (Minn. 1999). These circumstances are present when it is likely that "a complaining party would be subjected to the same action again and the duration of the challenged action is too short to be fully litigated before it ceases or expires." Dean, 868 N.W.2d at 5.

8. The county has not identified an issue that is capable of repetition but evades review. "Unemployment compensation determinations are inherently fact-based inquiries." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 462 n.13 (Minn. 2016). The issue here of whether Pete committed employment misconduct is fact-specific and the same question is not likely to recur. Cf. McCaskill, 603 N.W.2d at 328 (determining that appellant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his civil commitment did not present a broad issue capable of repetition because the issue was "unique to, and relate[d] only to, this specific commitment"). Because the specific issue here is not capable of repetition, this case does not present an exception to the mootness doctrine.

9. Finally, the county argues that dismissing this appeal as moot would circumvent the statutory authority allowing reimbursing employers to appeal ULJ decisions. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7 (2020) (explaining procedures for petitioning this court for writ of certiorari to review ULJ decisions). Mootness is an issue of justiciability, which is separate from a party's right to appeal an adverse decision. See 5 State ex rel. Sviggum v. Hanson, 732 N.W.2d 312, 321 (Minn.App. 2007) (explaining that justiciability doctrines, including mootness, relate to the court's ability to redress an injury and that a case must be dismissed when a case does not present a controversy that can be redressed). Regardless of the county's right to appeal an adverse decision, this court will not decide an appeal that does not present a justiciable controversy.

10. 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.

BY THE COURT 6

[*]Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.


Summaries of

Wadena Cnty. v. Pete

Court of Appeals of Minnesota
May 9, 2022
No. A21-1027 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 9, 2022)
Case details for

Wadena Cnty. v. Pete

Case Details

Full title:Wadena County, Relator, v. Michael Pete, Respondent, Department of…

Court:Court of Appeals of Minnesota

Date published: May 9, 2022

Citations

No. A21-1027 (Minn. Ct. App. May. 9, 2022)