Neil Hoven, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2016).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A17-0430

Neil Hoven,
Relator,

vs.

Henning Construction, Inc.,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed August 28, 2017
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35136742-3

Neil Hoven, Luverne, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Henning Construction, Inc., Adrian, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Lee B. Nelson, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, St.
Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Reilly, Judge; and Jesson,
Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
In this certiorari appeal from an unempl oyment-benefits determination, relator
challenges the application of Minn. Stat . § 268.085, subd. 9 (2016), to limit his
unemployment benefits to five weeks. We affirm.
FACTS
The facts of this case are not in dispute. Respondent Henning Construction Inc.
(Henning) had employed relator Neil Hoven as a seasonal truck driver since May 2014.
Relator’s son owns a 25% interest in Henning. After being laid o ff in November 2016,
relator applied for unemployment benefits. Relator worked less than 16 calendar quarters
at Henning.
Respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development
(DEED) determined that, under Minn. Stat. § 2 68.085, subd. 9, rela tor was only eligible
for five weeks of benefits because relator’s son owns or controls an interest in Henning of
25% or more. In addition, D EED further determined that re lator did not qualify for the
exception presented in subdivision 9, which applies when the employee earned $7,500 or
more in each of the previous 16 calendar quarters.
Relator appealed DEED’s decision to an unemployment law judge (ULJ), who held
an evidentiary hearing at which relator testified. Following this hearing, the ULJ issued its
findings of fact and decision, concluding that relator was limited to five weeks of benefits
because his son owns 25% of Henning, and relator did not earn $7,500 or more in each of
3
the previous 16 calendar quarters. Relator requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed
his prior decision. Relator appeals by writ of certiorari.
D E C I S I O N
Relator argues that, because he does not own or control Henning, the ULJ
erroneously concluded that that he was limited to five weeks of benefits under Minn. Stat.
§ 268.085, subd. 9(a)(2). We disagree.
We review an unemployment-benefits de cision to determine whether a party’s
substantial rights were prejudiced and may alter the decision only if, among other reasons,
the decision is affected by an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2016). The
ULJ’s interpretation of an unemployment-insurance statute is a question of law subject to
de novo review. See Bukkuri v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 729 N.W.2d 20, 21 (Minn.
App. 2007). “Where the legislature’s inte nt is clearly discernable from plain and
unambiguous language, statutory construction is neither necessary nor permitted and courts
apply the statute’s plain meaning.” Am. Tower, L.P. v. City of Grant , 636 N.W.2d 309,
312 (Minn. 2001).
Relator’s argument is directly contradict ed by Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 9(a),
which limits unemployment-benefits eligibility for applicants who are related to owners of
the business that employed them:
Wage credits from an employer may not be used for
unemployment benefit purposes by any applicant who:

. . . .

4
(2) is the spouse, parent, or minor child of any
individual who owns or contro ls directly or indirectly 25
percent or more interest in the employer.

This subdivision is effec tive when the applicant has
been paid five times the app licant’s weekly unemployment
benefit amount in the current be nefit year. This subdivision
does not apply if the applican t had wages paid in covered
employment of $7,500 or more from the employer covered by
this subdivision in each of the 16 calendar quarters prior to
the effective date of the benefit account . . . .

(Emphasis added.) Because it is undisputed that relator’s son owns 25% of Henning and
that relator did not work and receive wages in each of the preceding 16 calendar quarters
in order to meet the statutory exception, the ULJ did not err by concluding that, under this
statute’s plain meaning, relator was limited to five weeks of unemployment benefits.
1
Affirmed.

1 Relator also claims that “[t]his statute is unconstitutional as it discriminates against [him
for] being a father of an adult son who owns 25% of the company.” This statement is not
accompanied by any clarificati on, constitutional analysis, or citation to legal authority.
Accordingly, we decline to address this issue. See, e.g., Ganguli v. Univ. of Minn. , 512
N.W.2d 918, 919 n.1 (M inn. App. 1994) (declining to a ddress issue in absence of legal
analysis or citation).