Richard Odoms, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1547

Richard Odoms,
Relator,

vs.

SMSC Gaming Enterprises - Mystic Lake Casino,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed May 29, 2018
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35639256-3

Richard E. Odoms, Hamburg, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Gregory S. Paulson, Brodeen & Paulson PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for respondent)

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

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and Reyes,
Judge.
2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
CONNOLLY, Judge
Pro se relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) on
reconsideration that relator is ineligible for unemployment benefits because he did not
actively seek suitable employment during the period that he was on medical leave. Relator
also argues that his rights to due process and a fair hearing were violated. We affirm the
ULJ’s decision.
FACTS
In February 2017, relator Richard Odoms took time off from his job as a security
officer at SMSC Gaming Enterprises d/b/a Mystic Lake Casino (SMSC) because of back
pain. Odoms went to see a chiropractor a few days after his pain began. After evaluating
his condition, his chiropractor suggested he take a few days off from work and schedule an
appointment with a physician. The next day Odoms saw a physician and, after undergoing
an MRI, the physician determined that Odoms was experiencing back pain because of two
herniated disks. On April 11, Odoms’s doctor wrote a letter defining his work restrictions,
which included: “No prolonged standing, no stairs, no lifting over 2 pounds, no stairways,
four hour shifts instead of eight hour shifts.”
After Odoms missed some shifts at work due to this injury, SMSC placed him on a
medical leave of absence effective February 22. This medical leave of absence lasted for
around 90 days. About two and a half months later, he applied for unemployment benefits.
Odoms established a benefits account on April 30 and received several weekly
disbursements of $1 70. On May 19, the Minnesota Department of Employment and
3
Economic Development (DEED) determined that Odoms was ineligible from receiving any
unemployment benefits because he had failed to actively seek suitable employment while
he was unemployed. 1 On June 8, Odoms returned to work for SMSC and was able to
engage in his routine shifts and duties. Odoms appealed DEED’s determination, and a
hearing was scheduled for June 27.
At the hearing, both Odoms and a representative of SMSC were present, along with
two other witnesses for SMSC. Odoms admitted that he had notice that one of the
requirements for unemployment-benefit eligibility was seeking suitable employment while
collecting unemployment benefits. He also admitted that he did not look for work because
it would not have made sense to look for temporary work when he was planning to return
to his job at SMSC as soon as he was physically able. The ULJ issued a decision holding
that Odoms was ineligible because he was not actively seeking employment while
receiving benefits.
Odoms filed a request for reconsideration , arguing that the ULJ’s decision was
flawed because (1) Odoms was deprived of due process when he was surprised by the
presence of SMSC witnesses; (2) a different judge should have considere d his request for
reconsideration; and (3) he was exempt from looking for work during the period in which
he was unable to work at SMSC because he was still employed by SMSC. The ULJ denied
Odoms’s request for reconsideration. This appeal follows.

1 Odoms also received two earlier determinations. The first, on May 15, 2017, said that his
receipt of social security retirement benefits did not result in a reduction of his weekly
unemployment benefit amount. The second, o n May 19, 2017, said he was eligible for
unemployment benefits “if all other requirements are met.”
4
D E C I S I O N
I. Odoms’s due-process rights were not violated.
Odoms argues that the decision to find him ineligible for benefits was flawed
because he had no prior notification that his employer would be involved at the hearing.
He also argues that the unemployment-insurance statutory scheme violates due process of
law because the same ULJ who presided at the de novo due -process hearing was allowed
to decide his subsequent request for reconsideration. Odoms is incorrect, and we address
his due-process arguments in turn.
Contrary to Odoms’s claim, DEED provided him with notice that his employer
would have the ability to attend his evidentiary hearing and present evidence on its behalf.
This notice was provided to him in the form of a “No tice of Hearing” that designated his
employer as an interested party in this action. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1 (Supp.
2017) (“[t]he chief unemployment law judge must set a time and date for a de novo due
process hearing and send notice to any applicant and any employer”). Moreover, Odoms
was also sent instructions —under applicable administrative rules —to help him identify
witnesses the other party intended to have testify at the hearing. Minn. R. 3310.2905, subp.
2(E), 3310.2914, subp. 2. Thus, Odoms knew or should have known that his employer had
the right to be involved at this stage of his eligibility determination.
Odoms claims that his right to due process also requires that a different ULJ decide
his request for reconsideration as opposed to the ULJ who presided over the hearing. This
argument fails. Requests for reconsideration—like new-trial motions—allow the court an
“opportunity to correct its own errors without subjecting the parties and the appellate courts
5
to the time, expense, and inconvenience involved in an appeal.” Sauter v. Wasemiller, 389
N.W.2d 200, 201 (Minn. 1986). Odoms received one hearing in front of an impartial
decision-maker. Aside from this hearing, Odoms is allowed to file a request for
reconsideration and appeal the denial of that request to this court to challenge any perceived
errors. But Odoms is not entitled to have a different ULJ decide his request for
reconsideration because pr ocedural due process does not —contrary to Odoms’s
suggestion—provide a right to consideration of his unemployment appeal by two different
ULJs. See Juster Bros., Inc. v. Christgau, 214 Minn. 108, 119, 7 N.W.2d 501, 508 (1943)
(“Notice and an opportunity to be heard are universally recognized as essential to due
process.”) (emphasis added); see also Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S. Ct.
893, 902 (1976) (the hallmark of procedural due process is “the opportunity to be heard at
a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.”) (quotation omitted) (emphasis added).
II. The ULJ did not err in determining that Odoms was ineligible for
unemployment benefits because he failed to actively seek employment.

Odoms contends that the record does not contain substantial evidence to support the
ULJ’s determination that he failed to actively seek employment. To be eligible for
unemployment benefits, individuals seeking benefits must meet “all of the ongoing
eligibility requirements under section 268.085.” Minn. Stat. § 26 8.069, subd. 1(3) (Supp.
2017). One of the enumerated eligibility conditions contained in section 268.085, subd. 1
is that the “applicant was actively seeking suitable employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085,
subd. 1(5) (Supp. 2017). “Actively seeking suitable employment” is defined as an
applicant making “reasonable, diligent efforts an individual in similar circumstances would
6
make if genuinely interested in obtaining su itable employment under the existing
conditions in the labor market area.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 16(a) (Supp. 2017).
Moreover, “[l]imiting the search to positions that are not available” does not meet the
definition of “actively seeking suitable employment.” Id.
During his de novo due -process hearing with the ULJ, Odoms admitted to not
looking for any other work during his medical-leave period. He explained that he had not
looked for employment “because [he] knew [he] was going back [to SMSC] and [he is
now] back.” He also went on to explain that looking for work he would be able to do while
on his work restrictions defied “common logic.” This argument also fails.
Unemployment-insurance benefits are meant to provide “workers who are
unemployed through no fault of their own a temporary partial wage replacement to assist
the unemployed worker to become reemployed.” Minn. Stat. § 268.03, subd. 1 (Supp.
2017). Minnesota’s unemployment -insurance program is not meant as a short -term
disability program, and it does not defy common sense or logic to require people—even in
Odoms’s situation —to look for work when they are restricted from engaging in their
regular employment. The unemployment -insurance program aims to help displaced
workers survive while they become reemployed as soon as possible. This aim is possible
only if the statutory command that unemployed workers must be “actively seeking suitable
employment” is followed. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(5). While many employers might
not have been suitable for an employee with Odoms’s work restrictions or time constraints,
those limitations relate to his chances of becoming employed and not to the reasonable
7
efforts he made to find a job that did not violate his work restrictions before returnin g to
SMSC.
Although Odoms stay ed in contact with SMSC during his separation period, that
did not meet the requirement to seek suitable employment because he was not able to work
at SMSC when he was collecting unemployment benefits . By doing nothing except
remaining in contact with his employer, he expressly limited his job search to “positions
that [were] not available” to him. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 16(a). Because he did
not comply with one of the enumerated ongoing el igibility requirements, Odoms was not
eligible for unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(5); see also McNeilly
v. Dept. of Emp’t and Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 708 (Minn. App. 2010) (holding that
seasonally unemployed employees are not exempt from actively seeking employment even
if they are still employed by their seasonal employer).
On this record, it appears that Odoms failed to engage in a reasonable effort to obtain
other suitable employment during his medical -leave period from SMSC. Moreover,
although he chose not to search for other employment , he admitted that he could have
attempted to search for jobs that complied with his restrictions and allowed him to earn
wages before returning to SMSC. We conclude that the record contains substantial
evidence to support the ULJ’s finding that Odoms was not actively seeking employment
from April 30, 2017 to June 7, 2017.
Affirmed.