Patrick Hammer Fay, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development , 2015 Minn. App. LEXIS 12 ( 2015 )

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A14-1487
Patrick Hammer Fay,
Relator,
vs.
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed March 2, 2015
Affirmed
Cleary, Chief Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 32669919-3
Patrick Hammer Fay, Woodbury, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent)
Considered and decided by Cleary, Chief Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
SYLLABUS
“Good cause” for failing to participate in reemployment assistance services under
Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7) (2014), is defined as a reason that would have
prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating in those
services.
OPINION
CLEARY, Chief Judge
Relator Patrick Fay was eligible for unemployment benefits but missed a
reemployment assistance services meeting. Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that relator was ineligible
for unemployment benefits for the week that he missed the meeting because he failed,
without good cause, to attend. Relator filed an online appeal and an unemployment law
judge (ULJ) conducted an evidentiary hearing. The ULJ found that relator did not have
good cause for missing the meeting and was ineligible for unemployment benefits for the
relevant week. Relator requested a rehearing and the ULJ affirmed. Relator appealed to
this court under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (2014).
FACTS
Relator applied for unemployment benefits and established a benefit account with
DEED. DEED determined that relator needed reemployment assistance services and
mailed relator a notice that indicated he had an appointment. The notice provided in bold
and underlined typeface that: “Failure to attend will result in a delay or denial of your
unemployment benefits.” Relator missed the scheduled reemployment assistance
services meeting. Relator testified that he “put [the meeting] in [his] schedule
and . . . simply missed it.” Relator also said that the meeting was easy to attend because
he lived 500 feet from the building. The ULJ asked relator if he had any other facts to
provide regarding the missed meeting and he responded that he did not. Relator attended
a subsequent reemployment assistance services meeting.
2
ISSUES
Did relator have good cause under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7) for missing a
reemployment assistance services meeting so that he is eligible for unemployment
benefits?
ANALYSIS
I.
The ULJ held an evidentiary hearing and determined that relator did not have good
cause for missing a required reemployment assistance services meeting and was
ineligible for unemployment benefits for the relevant week. Relator argues that he should
receive unemployment benefits for the week that he missed a required meeting because
he was distracted by other priorities and forgot about the meeting. DEED responds that
relator did not have good cause for missing the meeting as is required under Minn. Stat.
§ 268.085, subd. 1(7). This case presents an issue of first impression because “good
cause” is not defined under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7), and has never been
addressed by this court. In order to interpret good cause, we will first determine whether
the statutory language is ambiguous and, if so, use the canons of statutory construction.
Then we will apply the definition of good cause to the facts of this case.
A.
The ULJ found that relator did not have good cause for missing the reemployment
assistance services meeting under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7). “We review de novo
a ULJ’s determination that an applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits. And we
review findings of fact in the light most favorable to the ULJ’s decision and will rely on
3
findings that are substantially supported by the record.” Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck
Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 30-31 (Minn. App. 2012) (citations omitted). There is no
equitable denial or allowance of benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2014). Minn.
Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1 (2014) lists eligibility requirements for unemployment benefits.
The eligibility statute provides that an applicant may be eligible for unemployment
benefits if: “the applicant has been participating in reemployment assistance services,
such as job search and resume writing classes, if the applicant has been determined in
need of reemployment assistance services by the commissioner, unless the applicant has
good cause for failing to participate.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7) (emphasis
added).
Good cause for failing to participate is undefined in subdivision 1(7). “When the
words of a law in their application to an existing situation are clear and free from all
ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the
spirit.” Minn. Stat. § 645.16 (2014). A statute is ambiguous if its language is subject to
more than one reasonable interpretation. State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107, 111 (Minn.
2007). Good cause for failing to participate in the reemployment assistance services
meeting is ambiguous because it is susceptible to a spectrum of reasonable
interpretations. For example, good cause could be a medical emergency, family
emergency, or vehicle malfunction. Each of these scenarios could involve facts that
make an applicant more or less responsible for missing the meeting, depending on the
efforts that the applicant makes to attend or reschedule.
4
When a statutory provision is ambiguous, this court can turn to the canons of
statutory construction to ascertain a statute’s meaning. State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d
606, 611 (Minn. 2011). In this case, the doctrine of in pari materia could be particularly
helpful. The doctrine is “a tool of statutory interpretation that allows two statutes with
common purposes and subject matter to be construed together to determine the meaning
of ambiguous statutory language.” Id. (quotation omitted). Under the doctrine of in pari
materia, the definition of good cause from Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(d) (2014) could
help define good cause in Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7). See McNeice v. City of
Minneapolis, 250 Minn. 142, 146-47, 84 N.W.2d 232, 236 (1957) (applying the
definition of gambling devices in section 325.53 to gambling devices in sections 614.06
and 614.07).
Minn. Stat. § 268.105 (2014) describes the process for appeals of a ULJ decision.
If an applicant fails to participate in a hearing before a ULJ, the applicant can make a
request for reconsideration and receive an additional hearing “if the party who failed to
participate had good cause for failing to do so.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(d)
(emphasis added). In that paragraph, “good cause” is defined as “a reason that would
have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating in the
hearing.” Id.
Similarly, Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7) provides that an applicant may
continue to receive benefits despite missing a required reemployment assistance services
meeting by showing good cause for missing the meeting. The common purpose of these
sections is requiring an applicant to show good cause for missing a hearing or meeting.
5
In the case of section 268.085, the applicant has to show good cause to be eligible for
unemployment benefits, whereas in the case of section 268.105, the applicant has to show
good cause to obtain an additional hearing. In more general terms, the purpose of chapter
268 is to provide workers who are unemployed through no fault of their own with a
temporary partial wage to help the unemployed worker become reemployed. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.03, subd. 1 (2014). Sections 268.105 and 268.085 further this purpose by
permitting applicants to receive an additional hearing or benefits even though the
applicant missed a required meeting.
In addition to the definition of good cause in section 268.105, good cause is
defined three other times in chapter 268.1 But these definitions of good cause do not
share a common purpose with Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7). First, good cause is
defined in Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13c (2014). When an applicant refuses to accept
or apply for suitable employment, that applicant must have good cause for the refusal or
the applicant loses eligibility for eight weeks. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 13c(a).
Subdivision 13c defines good cause for refusing suitable employment as “a reason that
would cause a reasonable individual who wants suitable employment to fail to apply for,
accept, or avoid suitable employment.” Id., subd. 13c(b). Subdivision 13c(b) also lists
several specific situations that constitute good cause. Where subdivision 13c deals with
an applicant having to justify a refusal to accept (or apply for) suitable employment,
1
Good cause is undefined in two other sections of chapter 268. See Minn. Stat.
§§ 268.044, subd. 2(c) (requiring employers who fail to submit reports on time to show
good cause to avoid late fees), .053, subd. 1(d) (2014) (dealing with employers requesting
more time to file a notice of election if the commissioner finds good cause for an
extension).
6
subdivision 1 concerns a situation where an applicant has to explain an absence from a
meeting. Given the different showings that each subdivision requires, subdivision 13c
does not share a common purpose with subdivision 1.
Second, in the context of filing continued requests for unemployment benefits,
Minn. Stat. § 268.0865, subd. 5(a) (2014) defines good cause as “a compelling substantial
reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence” from
filing a request. While some of the language in section 286.0865 could be helpful, it is
distinguishable from Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7) because it deals with an initial
request for benefits submitted by mail or electronically, whereas section 268.085
concerns an applicant having to justify a missed meeting. Section 268.0865 would also
impose a higher standard for explaining a missed meeting than section 268.105, as
section 268.0865 defines good cause as a compelling substantial reason that would have
prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence, whereas section 268.105 only
requires a reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due
diligence. Given a choice between the two, we select the lesser burden because it would
give an applicant a better chance at receiving unemployment benefits in accordance with
the purpose of chapter 268. See Minn. Stat. § 268.031, subd. 2 (2014) (“This chapter is
remedial in nature and must be applied in favor of awarding unemployment benefits.”).
Finally, Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(d) (2014) defines good cause for failing to
request another work assignment or refusing to accept a suitable assignment as “a reason
that is significant and would compel an average, reasonable worker, who would
otherwise want an additional suitable job assignment” to fail to request another
7
assignment or refuse an offered assignment. The definition of good cause in section
268.095 deals with circumstances where an applicant who was employed by a staffing
service refuses to accept or apply for an assignment and has to show good cause for those
actions. That scenario is distinguishable from section 268.085, where the applicant has to
show good cause for missing a reemployment assistance services meeting.
Because Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(d) shares a common purpose and subject
matter with Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7), we adopt the definition of good cause from
section 268.105 to determine the meaning of the undefined and ambiguous good cause in
section 268.085. We therefore define good cause under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7)
as a reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from
participating in the reemployment assistance services meeting.
B.
We next have to determine what would keep a reasonable person acting with due
diligence from participating in reemployment assistance services. This court has
interpreted the definition of good cause under Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 2(d) on
several occasions, and we can look to those cases to help interpret the definition here.
See Petracek v. Univ. of Minn., 780 N.W.2d 927, 930 (Minn. App. 2010) (using other
interpretations of good cause to help decide what would prevent a reasonable person
acting with due diligence from participating at a hearing under section 268.105).
In Petracek, the court considered whether being in jail was good cause for missing
a hearing under section 268.105. 780 N.W.2d at 929. The court held that being in jail,
without an attempt to reschedule the hearing or further explanation of the circumstances
8
of the incarceration, is not per se good cause for missing a hearing. Id. at 930. In
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 345 (Minn. App. 2006), the court held that
missing a hearing for work was not good cause under section 268.105 when the applicant
did not attempt to reschedule the hearing or demonstrate that a request for time off to
attend the hearing was denied. Petracek and Skarhus make clear that an applicant must
make some showing—like an explanation of the circumstances of the incarceration in the
case of Petracek, or DEED refusing to reschedule a hearing in Skarhus—in order to
establish good cause for missing a hearing.
At the evidentiary hearing, relator testified that he missed the meeting because he
forgot; he did not have any other justification for his absence even when the ULJ asked
for further explanation. Relator also testified that he knew about the meeting, put it in his
calendar, and lived only 500 feet from the meeting location. Relator attended a
subsequent meeting without issue. A reasonable person acting with due diligence would
not have forgotten about the meeting.
Relator presented new information for why he missed the meeting in his brief to
this court. Relator explained that he was having difficulty keeping up with insurance-
related paperwork; he was going through bankruptcy; he was searching for a job; and he
was assisting a close family member suffering from an illness. However, relator did not
present this information to the ULJ and we therefore may not consider it. See Plowman
v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., 261 N.W.2d 581, 583 (Minn. 1977) (“It is well settled that an
appellate court may not base its decision on matters outside the record on appeal . . . .”).
9
Additionally, while this court is sympathetic to relator’s personal and financial struggles,
there is no equitable denial or allowance of benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3.
DECISION
Relator is not eligible for unemployment benefits for the week that he missed a
required meeting because he did not have a reason that would have prevented a
reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating at the meeting.
Affirmed.
10