Jennie Rasmussen, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2012).
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A13-2348
Jennie Rasmussen,
Relator,
vs.
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.
Filed August 18, 2014
Affirmed
Smith, Judge
Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 31595847-3
Jennie Rasmussen, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)
Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent department)
Considered and decided by Larkin, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Smith,
Judge.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
SMITH, Judge
We affirm the determination of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is
barred from withdrawing her benefit account and establishing a new one because such
withdrawal is prohibited by Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(c) (2012).
FACTS
Relator Jennie Rasmussen worked for North American Wholesale Floral from late
November 2012 until late July 2013. Rasmussen established an unemployment-benefits
account effective July 21, 2013. On July 23, 2013, respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) sent Rasmussen a determination,
showing her potential benefits. The determination informed her that her base period was
from April 2012 to March 2013 and that her employer had reported wage information for
two quarters, October to December 2012 and January to March 2013. The determination
did not report any information for wages paid after March 2013. It advised Rasmussen
that she had until August 12, 2013 to appeal the determination and “[i]f the employer or
wage information listed is not correct,” she should “complete and return the enclosed
Wage and Employer Correction Sheet before Monday, August 12, 2013.” Rasmussen
allegedly called DEED for further information on her base period, but she did not appeal
or return a correction sheet to DEED.
Beginning on August 7, 2013, Rasmussen received weekly unemployment
benefits for six weeks. In September 2013, she asked to withdraw her benefit account so
that her wages from April to June 2013 could be included in the calculation of her
unemployment benefits amount. An administrative clerk at DEED denied her request,
and Rasmussen appealed. After a brief hearing, a ULJ ruled that, because Rasmussen has
received unemployment benefits, “the law does not allow her to withdraw” her benefit
account. Rasmussen requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed.
2
DECISION
Rasmussen requests reversal of the ULJ’s decision, arguing that she relied on
erroneous oral advice from DEED regarding her base period. We may reverse or modify
a ULJ’s decision when it is affected by an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd.
7(d)(4) (2012). We review a ULJ’s legal conclusions de novo. Stagg v. Vintage Place
Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
A benefits account may not be withdrawn after any benefits have been paid.
Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(c). Rasmussen received benefits for several weeks before
requesting withdrawal of her benefit account, so she is barred from withdrawing her
account.
Rasmussen asserts that she would have delayed her request to establish an
unemployment-benefits account had she not been misinformed by DEED about her base
period. We sympathize; it seems unfair if Rasmussen’s actions were misguided by
DEED. But we are bound by the statutory prohibition on withdrawal of an
unemployment-benefits account after payments are made, even in cases where such a
conclusion seems unfair. See Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2012) (“There is no
equitable or common law denial or allowance of unemployment benefits.”); see also
State ex rel. Timo v. Juvenile Court, 188 Minn. 125, 128, 246 N.W. 544, 546 (1933)
(“The legislature is at liberty to ignore logic and perpetrate injustice as long as it does not
transgress constitutional limits.”). Also, Rasmussen was given an opportunity to correct
missing or inaccurate information in the materials that DEED used in calculating her
3
unemployment-benefits amount by returning a written correction sheet, and she did not
do so. We are therefore unable to grant her relief.
Affirmed.
4