Jessica Fisher, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A17-1579

Jessica Fisher,
Relator,

vs.

TCG, Inc., d/b/a Humera, Inginaire, Binesta and Jurisin,
Respondent,
Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed June 4, 2018
Affirmed
Reyes, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35640209-3

Jessica Fisher, New Hope, Minnesota (pro se relator)

TCG, Inc., d/b/a Humera, Inginaire, Bine sta and Jurisin, Minneapolis, Minnesota
(respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Schellhas, Pres iding Judge; Reyes, Judge; and Stauber,
Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Ap peals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
REYES, Judge
On appeal from an unemployment-law judge (ULJ)’s determination that relator was
ineligible for unemployment benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.095 (2016) because she quit
her employment, relator argues that: (1) she completed her assignment on a different date
than that found by th e ULJ; (2) her employer failed to comply with the statutory-notice
requirement; (3) she requested an additional assignment within five calendar days of
completion of her assignment; (4) she had go od cause that prevented her from contacting
her employer to request additional work with in the five-day period; and (5) Minnesota’s
unemployment laws are unconstitutional. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Jessica Fisher worked full time for respondent Humera, a temporary staffing
agency, from July 18, 2016 to April 28, 2017. During that period, Humera assigned relator
to work at Medica as a tempor ary customer-service representative. Before relator began
the assignment, Humera electronically sent relator an unemployment-insurance notice (the
notice) on July 5, 2016, informing her of he r statutory requirement to request additional
work within five calendar days of completing an assignment or risk being ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
On April 26, 2017, Humera’s staffing supervisor emailed and reminded her that her
assignment with Medica would end on April 28, 2017, and asked whether she wanted
another assignment. Relator did not respond to the email.

3
On or about April 30, 2017 , relator established an un employment-benefit account
and applied for unemployment benefits. On Ap ril 28, an operations manager at Humera
left relator a message regarding a bonus. Relator returned the call on May 4, 2017, but did
not inquire about an additiona l assignment during th e conversation. Relator requested
another assignment on May 11, 2017.
On May 19, 2017, respondent Minnes ota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) determined relator ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Relator appealed the determination, and the ULJ held a hearing on J une 28, 2017. After
the hearing, the ULJ determined that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits pursuant
to Minn. Stat. § 268.095 because she quit he r employment at Humera. Relator requested
reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the decision. This certiorari appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
An applicant who quits em ployment during her base period is ineligible for
unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268 .095, subd. 1 (Supp. 2017). Whether an
employee quit employment is a question of fact for a ULJ to determine. Posey v. Securitas
Services USA, Inc., 879 N.W.2d 662, 664 (Minn. App. 2016). We review findings of fact
in the light most favorable to the ULJ’s decision, Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., 888 N.W.2d
452, 460 (Minn. 2016), and will not distur b them “as long as th ere is evidence that
reasonably tends to sustain those findings.” Stagg v. Vintage Place Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312,
315 (Minn. 2011). We also give deferen ce to the ULJ’s credibility determinations.
Icenhower v. To tal Auto., Inc. , 845 N.W.2d 849, 855 (Minn. App. 2014), review denied
(Minn. July 15, 2014).

4
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(e)(1), pr ovides that “[a]n applicant has quit
employment with a staffing service if, within five calendar days after completion of a
suitable job assignment from a staffing service, the applicant fails without good cause to
affirmatively request an additional suitable job assignment.”
I. The ULJ did not err when it found th at relator completed her assignment on
April 28, 2017.

Relator disputes the ULJ’s determinati on that she completed her assignment at
Medica on April 28, 2017, arguing that her assignment actually ended on May 9, 2017.
Relator’s assertion is premised on her contention that she was paid for work from May 1
to May 5, 2017. However, the record shows no such payment, and relator did not provide
any evidence to support her claim. Therefore, we are not persuaded.
Instead, the ULJ correctly found that relator’s last day of work at Humera’s client,
Medica, was April 28, 2017. It noted that “[t] his was not disputed at the hearing and it is
the end date [relator] provided in her unempl oyment insurance request for information.”
And relator’s own email to Humera on May 29, 2017, noted that her assignment concluded
on April 28, 2017. Ample evidence supports the ULJ’s finding that relator completed her
assignment on April 28, 2017.
II. The ULJ did not err in findi ng that relator signed and received a copy of notice
required by Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(d).

Relator argues that Humera failed to comp ly with the statutory-notice requirement
because she did not receive a physical copy of the notice. We disagree.
Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(e), provides that a st affing-service employee quits
employment only if the applicant “signed and was provided a copy of a separate document

5
written in clear and concise language” informing the applicant that unemployment benefits
may be affected” when she begins her employm ent. Nothing in the statute requires the
staffing service to provide its employees with a physical copy of the notice, and this court
cannot read such a requirement into the statute. See Bukkuri v. Dep’t. of Emp’t. & Econ.
Dev., 729 N.W.2d 20, 23 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that this court lacks authority to apply
exceptions omitted from unemployment statutes); Great River Energy v. Swedzinski , 860
N.W.2d 362, 364 (Minn. 2015) (stating that c ourts do not add words to a statute). The
record supports the ULJ’s fi ndings that relator electronica lly signed the notice and that
Humera provided an electronic copy of the no tice to relator that complied with section
268.095, subdivision 2(e).
III. The ULJ did not err in finding that relator did not request an additional
assignment within five calendar days of completion of her assignment at
Medica.

Relator argues that the ULJ erred in dete rmining that relator quit her employment
because she requested an additional assignment within five days of completing her Medica
assignment. This argument lacks merit.
Relator did not contact Humera to reques t an additional assignment before May 3,
2017, the final day she could make such a request under Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd.
2(e)(1). Relator claims that she called Humera to request another assignment on April 25,
2017, and on May 1, 2017, but there is no record of contact between relator and Humera
on either date. The ULJ did not err in determining that re lator quit by failing to request
additional work within five days after completion of her assignment at Medica.

6
IV. The ULJ did not err when in finding th at relator did not have good cause to
justify her failure to request an additional assignment.

Relator next argues that she did not quit her employment because the burn injury
she allegedly sustained on May 3, 2017, was good cause that prevented her from contacting
Humera to request additional work. Having good cause can justify a failure to request an
additional assignment within five days of th e completion of the j ob assignment. Minn.
Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(e)(1).
The ULJ found that relator suffered a burn on May 4, 2017, based on her testimony
at the hearing. But, as the ULJ determined, this does not constitute good cause exempting
relator from Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 2(e)’s five-day contact requirement.
On appeal, relator now argues that the burn actually occurred on May 3, not May 4.
Nothing in the record supports this conten tion. We are not persuaded by realtor’s
argument, see Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582-83 (Minn. 1988) (“An appellate court
may not base its decision on ma tters outside the record on a ppeal, and may not consider
matters not produced and received in evidence below.”), and therefore defer to the ULJ’s
findings as supported by the record.
V. Relator forfeited her argument that Minnesota’s unemployment statutes are
unconstitutional.

Relator now asserts that: (1) it is uncons titutional for the same ULJ to make both
the initial and reconsideration decisions in th e same case and (2) it is unconstitutional to
apply different laws to temporary and regu lar employees. Relator has not provided any
legal arguments or caselaw to support her argument. Therefore, she has forfeited this issue.
See State v. Bartylla, 755 N.W.2d 8, 22 (Minn. 2008) (a ppellate courts “will not consider

7
pro se arguments on appeal that are unsupporte d by either arguments or citations to legal
authority”).
Affirmed.