Cornelius Williams, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-0686

Cornelius Williams,
Relator,

vs.

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed December 11, 2017
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 34374436-5

Cornelius Williams, St. Louis Park, Minnesota (pro se relator)

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

Considered and decided by Peterson, Pres iding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
Relator challenges a decision by an unemployment-la w judge (ULJ) on
reconsideration that relator is ineligible for une mployment benefits because he did not
timely appeal respondent’s dete rminations of ineligibility a nd fraud. Relator argues that
the ULJ erred because: (1) he had moved to a new residence and did not receive notice of
2
respondent’s determinations and (2) he provided re spondent with his email address. We
affirm.
FACTS
In November 2015, Relator Cornelius Williams applied for unemployment benefits
from respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Ec onomic Development
(DEED). He provided hi s address in Brooklyn Center, Minnesota, for mailing
correspondence. Shortly thereafter, relator moved and did not update his mailing address
with DEED.
On December 14, 2015, relator began employment with Horizontal Integration, Inc.
While employed there, relator filed online requests for unemployment benefits for the
weeks of December 13 through December 19, December 20 through 26, and December 27
through January 2, receiving $424.32 in unemployment benefits for each period.
The online continued-benefits request requi res beneficiaries to view an “Address
Verification” screen, which instructs them to keep their address up-to-date for four years
after the last request for benefits payment has been made. It also ca utions that if DEED
cannot contact the beneficiary, it will make audit findings without the beneficiary’s input,
and the beneficiary will be responsible for any overpayments that might result.
In January 2016, DEED audited relator’s benefit account. Relator’s employer
provided DEED with a detailed weekly breakdown of hours worked, hourly wage, and
gross earnings. In February 2016, DEED issued a determination finding relator ineligible
for unemployment benefits for the three weeks of December 13, 2015 through January 2,
2016, and issued a fraud determination, assessing a penalty of $508.80. DEED mailed both
3
determinations to relator’s registered addre ss in Brooklyn Center. The determinations
stated each would become final unless relator filed an appeal within 20 calendar days.
In early November 2016 , relator became aware of both February 2016
determinations of ineligibility and fraud and requested a late appeal. A ULJ summarily
dismissed relator’s appeal. Relator requested reconsideration. On reconsideration, the ULJ
set aside the prior summary dismissal and ordered a hearing on the question of jurisdiction.
During the hearing, the ULJ found the court lacked jurisdiction because relator did not
timely file the appeal. Relator requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed.
Relator filed a petition for a writ of certiorari.
D E C I S I O N
Relator argues that the ULJ erred becaus e: (1) he had moved and did not receive
notice of respondent’s determinations and (2) he provided respondent with his email
address. We disagree.
We may affirm or remand, reverse, or modify a ULJ’s decision if, among other
things, the decision is “made u pon unlawful procedure,” contra ry to law, or unsupported
by substantial record evidence. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(3)-(5) (Supp. 2017).
By statute, both ineligib ility for unemployment benefits and fraud determinations
are final unless the applicant files an a ppeal within 20 calendar days after the
determinations are mailed. Minn. Stat. §§ 268.101, subd. 2(f); 268.18, subd. 2(b) (2016).
Relator admittedly did not file an appeal until November 10, 2016, after the appeal period
expired. There is no legal basis for relator’s untimely appeal to be heard and decided on

4
the merits, and there is no equitable entitleme nt to unemployment be nefits. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.069, subd. 3 (2016).
The law on timeliness of an appeal is “absolute and unambiguous.” Semanko v.
Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 309 Minn. 425, 428-30, 244 N.W.2d 663, 666 (1976); see Kennedy
v. Am. Paper Recycling Corp. , 714 N.W.2d 738, 7 39 (Minn. App. 2006) (applying
Semanko). The time period for appeals under the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance
Law must be “strictly construed, regardless of mitigating circumstances.” King v. Univ. of
Minn., 387 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn. App. 1986).
In relation to the non-receipt of a determination, “[t]he statute does not require actual
notice of the determination for the appeal period to run.” Grewe v. Comm’r of Econ. Sec.,
385 N.W.2d 894, 895 (Minn. App. 1986). In Godbout v. Dep’t of Emp’t and Econ. Dev.,
we held that the state constitutional right to due process requires that, preceding the mailing
of a determination, the applicant must be given “clear notice” of the “potential
consequences of failing to maintain a current mailing address with DEED for four years
after the receipt of benefits.” 827 N.W.2d 7 99, 803 (Minn. App. 2013). Relator knew of
the potential consequences of failure to updat e his address. He admitted to viewing the
“Address Verification” screen but did not change his address and instead “just kept going
forward.” Thus, relator had notice of his continued obligation to update his mailing address
with DEED.
Relator also argues that the ULJ erred in its reconsideration determination because
he provided DEED with his email address. In his application for unemployment benefits,
he answered “yes” to a question that asked, “When possible, would you like to view your
5
mail via Email, instead of by U.S. Mail?” He then listed and confirmed his email address.
By statute, DEED has the discretion to issue determinations by “electronic
transmission” under certain circumstances. Minn. Stat. § 268.032(a) (2016). DEED also
has the statutory discretion to send determina tions by U.S. mail, in which case it must be
mailed to an applicant’s “last known address.” Id. (b) (2016). As DEED notes in its brief,
it does not issue determinations by email beca use email is not secure, and determinations
contain sensitive information, including social security numbers and wage data. Instead,
all determinations are sent via U.S. Mail. Thus, DEED had no obligation to email relator.
The ULJ did not err by finding that it lacked jurisdiction because relator did not file
a timely appeal.
Affirmed.