Jeffrey Pernu, Relator,

This opinion will be unpublished and
may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2018).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A18-0457

Jeffrey Pernu,
Relator,

vs.

Cragin Machine Shop,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed January 22, 2019
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Department of Employment and
Economic Development
File No. 35930290-3

Jeffrey Pernu, Barnum, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Cragin Machine Shop, Superior, Wisconsin (respondent employer)

Lee B. Nelson, Department of Employment and Economic Developmen t, Saint Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Jesson, Presiding Judge; Halbrooks, Judge; and
Schellhas, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
After being laid off from his previous machinist position, rel ator Jeffrey Pernu
worked as a job-shop machinist for Cragin Machine Shop. After eight weeks at Cragin,
Pernu quit his job to participate in the Dislocated Worker Prog r a m , w i t h t h e h o p e s o f
obtaining more lucrative employment elsewhere. He then applied for unemployment
benefits. The department of employment and economic developmen t determined Pernu
ineligible for unemployment bene fits, and an unemployment-law j udge (ULJ) affirmed,
reasoning that Pernu quit and no exception to ineligibility bas ed on quitting applies. On
appeal, Pernu does not dispute the ULJ’s findings; rather, he offers an explanation for why
he quit his job. We affirm.
FACTS
On August 7, 2017, relator Jeffre y Pernu started working full-t ime as a job-shop
machinist with respondent Cragin Machine Shop. Previously, Per nu worked as a master
machinist at Jarden Home Brands for twenty-three years, but Jarden closed in the summer
of 2017.
After his first few days of employment at Cragin, during which Cragin assessed
Pernu’s skill level, Pernu was to ld he would be working as a jo b-shop machinist, making
$21.00 per hour. But Cragin to ld Pernu that he would be eligib le for a pay increase after
30 working days. A couple weeks later, Pernu learned that his insurance premiums would
cost approximately $177 per week. Shortly thereafter, and before he completed 30 working
days at Cragin, Pernu quit. Pernu had worked approximately 26 days, spanning 54 calendar

3
days, at Cragin. According to Pernu, he quit his job at Cragin to participate in the
Dislocated Worker Program in order to find a job with higher wages.1
After quitting Cragin, Pernu applied to the Minnesota Department of Employment
and Economic Development (DEED) for unemployment benefits. On October 12, 2017,
DEED issued a determination of ineligibility. Pernu appealed and a hearing was conducted
by a (ULJ). Based on the evidence presented during the hearing, the ULJ determined that
Pernu is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits because he did not (1) quit for good
reason caused by the employer; (2) quit unsuitable employment w ithin 30 calendar days;
or (3) quit unsuitable employment to enter reemployment-assistance training.
Pernu filed a request for reconsideration. The ULJ affirmed th e previous decision
because Pernu did not submit any evidence which would likely change the outcome of her
decision. This appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
On appeal, Pernu challenges the ULJ’s decision on reconsiderati on that he is
ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his employment and a quit exception
does not apply. Individuals who quit employment are ineligible for unemployment
benefits, unless an exception a pplies. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2018). These
exceptions include: (1) applican t quit the employment because o f a “good reason caused
by the employer”; (2) applicant quit the unsuitable employment within 30 calendar days of

1 Minnesota’s Dislocated Worker Program provides services to wor kers who have been
laid off through no fault of their own and focuses on preparing the worker to find a suitable
new job. See Minn. Stat. §§ 116L.17, .60 (2018).

4
beginning the employment; and (3) applicant quit the unsuitable employment to “enter
reemployment assistance training.” Id., subd. 1(1), (3)-(4).2
Whether an applicant is properly precluded from receiving unem ployment benefits
is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo. Grunow v. Walser Auto. Grp. LLC,
779 N.W.2d 577, 579 (Minn. App. 2010). But this court’s conclusions must be “based on
findings that have the requisite evidentiary support.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg.,
Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590, 594 (Minn. App. 2006). This court views the factual findings in the
light most favorable to the deci sion and the findings will not be disturbed when they are
substantially sustained by the evidence. Peterson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 753 N.W.2d 771,
774 (Minn. App. 2008), review denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008).
Quit because of a good reason caused by the employer

An applicant who quits because o f a good reason caused by the e mployer is not
prohibited from receiving unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(1).
Pernu testified that he quit working at Cragin because the wage s were too low and
the cost of insurance premiums w as too high. He stated that in order to continue placing
money into his 401(k) retirement account, he needed a better pa ying job. He believed
working with the Dislocated Wor ker Program would allow him to f ind a job with higher
wages. Pernu does not dispute the ULJ’s decision that Cragin’s conduct did not cause him
to quit. Based on the undisputed facts, we affirm the ULJ’s de termination that the good-
reason-caused-by-employer exception does not apply.

2 Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 includes ten quit exceptions. Only three exceptions are at
issue here.

5
Quit unsuitable employment within 30 calendar days

An applicant who quits within 30 calendar days of beginning uns uitable
employment is not prohibited fro m receiving unemployment benefi ts.3 M i n n . S t a t .
§ 268.095, subd. 1(3). Pernu worked for Cragin from August 7 to September 29, 2017, for
a total of 54 calendar days. Pernu does not dispute he quit be yond the 30 window. He
offers the explanation that he was unaware of this rule until after the fact. But Pernu’s lack
of knowledge does not provide a justification for failing to comply with the law. See Bucko
v. First Minn. Sav. Bank, F.S.B. , 471 N.W.2d 95, 97-98 (Minn. 1991) (affirming that
employer must abide by the employment statute, despite employer ’s lack of knowledge
about the statute). We affirm the ULJ’s determination that the quit-within-30-calendar-
days exception does not apply.
Quit unsuitable employment to enter reemployment training
An applicant is not prohibited from receiving unemployment bene fits if he quits
unsuitable employment to enter reemployment training. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(4).
While Pernu quit to participate in the Dislocated Worker Program, he does not dispute that
his employment with Cragin was suitable. Rather, he left Cragi n to find more preferable
employment. Because Pernu’s employment with Cragin was suitable, we affirm the ULJ’s
determination that the quit-to-enter-reemployment-training exception does not apply.

3 Suitable employment means “employment in the applicant’s labor market area that is
reasonably related to the applic ant’s qualifications.” Minn. S tat. § 268.035, subd. 23a
(2018). Pernu does not dispute that his employment with Cragin was suitable.

6
Pernu presents no valid legal challenges to the ULJ’s decision. Pernu instead makes
hardship arguments. He contends that he has always been driven to take care of his family,
and that he lost his job when his former employer closed, found work at Cragin shortly
thereafter, but because of the wages and insurance premiums, wa s unable to save for his
future retirement. While we re cognize the difficulties Pernu f aced, and his contributions
over the years, Minnesota unempl oyment law expressly prohibits equitable relief. Minn.
Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2018) (“There is no equitable or common law denial or allowance
of unemployment benefits.”). Because Pernu quit his employment , and no exception to
ineligibility applies, we affirm the ULJ’s determination that P ernu is ineligible for
unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.