Samuel I. Ricci, Relator v. Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc., Department of Employment and Economic Development ( 2015 )

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-1594
Samuel I. Ricci,
Relator,
vs.
Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed February 17, 2015
Reversed
Chutich, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 32598751-4
Samuel I. Ricci, Burnsville, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Bradley J. Lindeman, Meagher & Geer, P.L.L.P., Minneapolis, Minnesota (for
respondent Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc.)
Lee B. Nelson, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Chutich, Presiding Judge; Rodenberg, Judge; and
Smith, Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
CHUTICH, Judge
Relator Samuel Ricci challenges the unemployment-law judge’s decision that he
was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was not available for or actively
seeking suitable employment from May 11, 2014 through June 30, 2014. The Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (the department) contends that
the unemployment-law judge’s ineligibility determination should be affirmed as to the
week beginning May 11, 2014, but concedes that the judge should be reversed as to the
period from May 18, 2014 through June 30, 2014. Respondent Schmitty & Sons School
Buses, Inc. advised this court that it would not be filing a brief, although it believes that
the judge’s decision should be affirmed. Because Ricci was available for and actively
seeking suitable employment from May 11, 2014 through June 30, 2014, we reverse the
denial of benefits.
FACTS
Ricci, a bus driver who had worked for Schmitty & Sons for almost ten years, was
discharged from employment after he was unable to qualify for renewal of his medical
certificate, which is required of commercial drivers.
Ricci applied for unemployment benefits and established a benefit account
effective May 11, 2014. On June 11, 2014, the department issued an amended
determination of ineligibility. Ricci appealed, and on June 30, 2014, an unemployment-
law judge held a hearing addressing whether he was available for and actively seeking
suitable employment, among other things.
2
At the hearing, Ricci testified that he had some physical limitations, but also
described employment other than driving that he was qualified for and physically able to
perform. He also testified that during his first week of unemployment, he focused on
consulting medical personnel in an attempt to become recertified to drive a commercial
vehicle. Thereafter, he networked with people he knew, checked classified ads in the
newspaper, looked at job postings on websites, and called some companies for work, but
found no available positions. At a workforce center, Ricci obtained a reemployment
assessment, attended a class and, at the center’s suggestion, posted his resume on the
Internet. On June 27, 2014, Schmitty & Sons offered Ricci a non-driving position within
his medical limitations for at least 30 hours per week, without requiring him to submit a
medical statement, and Ricci accepted the offer on the same day.
The unemployment-law judge found that Ricci was not physically able to perform
suitable employment, describing his testimony to the contrary as “not plausible,” despite
her finding that Ricci later returned to a light-duty job with his former employer. The
judge cited the lack of a report from his treating physician stating that he is physically
able to work and listing his physical limitations, and the judge required that such a report
be submitted before he could be deemed available for suitable employment.
The unemployment-law judge further determined, for a variety of reasons, that
Ricci was not actively seeking suitable employment. The unemployment-law judge ruled
that the evidence failed to show that Ricci was available for or actively seeking suitable
employment from May 11, 2014 through June 30, 2014. After Ricci’s request for
reconsideration was denied, this appeal by writ of certiorari followed.
3
DECISION
We may affirm the unemployment-law judge’s decision or remand it for further
proceedings, or we may reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the
relator have been prejudiced because the findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are
affected by error of law or are unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2014). Whether an applicant is available for suitable
employment or actively seeking suitable employment is a question of fact. Goodman v.
Minn. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 312 Minn. 551, 553, 255 N.W.2d 222, 223 (1977). Whether
an applicant is eligible for unemployment benefits is a question of law. Skarhus v.
Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). “Questions of law are
reviewed de novo; findings of fact are upheld if they are supported by substantial
evidence.” Carlson v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 747 N.W.2d 367, 371 (Minn. App.
2008).
The purpose of chapter 268 is to assist those who are unemployed through no fault
of their own. Minn. Stat. § 268.03, subd. 1 (2014). “This chapter is remedial in nature
and must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits,” and any provision
precluding receipt of benefits must be narrowly construed. Minn. Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2
(2014).
An applicant for unemployment benefits must meet “all of the ongoing eligibility
requirements under section 268.085.” Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 1(3) (2014). These
requirements include that the applicant must be available for and actively seeking suitable
employment. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(4), (5) (2014). First, an applicant who is
4
“ready, willing, and able to accept suitable employment” is considered available for
suitable employment. Id., subd. 15(a) (2014) (emphasis added). The department
concedes, and we agree, that the unemployment-law judge’s determination that Ricci was
not able to perform suitable employment is not supported by substantial evidence in the
record. To the contrary, substantial evidence in the record shows that Ricci was able to
perform and was available for suitable employment.
Next, to be eligible for unemployment benefits, an applicant must also be actively
seeking suitable employment. Id., subd. 1(5). Such an applicant makes “those
reasonable, diligent efforts an individual in similar circumstances would make if
genuinely interested in obtaining suitable employment under the existing conditions in
the labor market area.” Id., subd. 16(a) (2014). Stating several reasons, the
unemployment-law judge found that Ricci was not actively seeking suitable employment.
Ricci argues that he followed the department’s guidelines for seeking work and
that he should be eligible for benefits for the entire period of his unemployment. The
department contends that the unemployment-law judge should be affirmed as to the week
beginning May 11, 2014, but concedes that the judge should be reversed as to the period
from May 18, 2014 through June 30, 2014.
As to the week beginning May 11, 2014, the department argues that Ricci is
ineligible because he did not do anything that week to try to find work. We must
disagree. The record shows that Ricci spent his time that week consulting with
physicians in an effort to resolve his medical problems so that he could renew his medical
certificate and resume his job driving a bus. We hold that he is eligible for this week
5
because he made those reasonable, diligent efforts someone in similar circumstances
would make when genuinely trying to find suitable work under the existing conditions in
the labor market.
As to the period from May 18, 2014 through June 30, 2014, the department
concedes that the unemployment-law judge erred by failing to consider the existing
conditions in Ricci’s labor market area. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 16(a); Neumann
v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 844 N.W.2d 736, 739 (Minn. App. 2014) (holding that
unemployment-law judge’s failure to identify applicant’s labor-market area and to
consider existing labor-market conditions were errors of law requiring reversal). Further,
the department concedes, and we agree, that Ricci made those reasonable, diligent efforts
someone in similar circumstances would make when genuinely trying to find suitable
work under the existing conditions in the labor market, and that he actively sought
suitable employment from May 18, 2014 through June 30, 2014. Accordingly, Ricci is
eligible for benefits for this period of time as well.
The decision of the unemployment-law judge on reconsideration that Ricci is
ineligible for unemployment benefits is reversed.
Reversed.
6