A19-0384

This opinion will be unpublished and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
A18-1972
A19-0384

In the Matter of: Sujata Sangwan.

Filed November 12, 2019
Affirmed
Peterson, Judge*

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 35919814-6

Sujata Sangwan, North St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Anne Froelich, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, St.
Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Reyes, Presiding Judge; Smith, Tracy M., Judge; and
Peterson, Judge.
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
PETERSON, Judge
In these consolidated appeals, relator Sujata Sangwan challenges the unemployment
law judge (ULJ) decisions that she (1) could not backdate the effective date of her 2017
unemployment-benefits account by eleven week s; and (2) did not have good cause for

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

2
failing to make weekly benefit requests in 2018. Sangwan argues that she delayed applying
and making weekly requests because representatives of respondent Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED) misinformed her. We affirm.
FACTS
During the 2016 -17 school year, Sangwan worked as a teacher for the Anoka -
Hennepin School District . In March 2017 , the school district sent Sangwan a letter
informing her that her employment contract would be terminated at the end of the academic
year. On May 8, 2017, o ne month before the termination, Sangwan visited the lobby of
DEED’s offices seeking information about unemployment benefits during her impending
unemployment. Sangwan claims that she showed her employer’s letter to a DEED
representative who advised her to wait until after the start of the next school year to apply
for an unemployment-benefits account. Sangwan contends that she again visited the DEED
lobby on August 22, and a different DEED representative advised her to “wait a little
longer” before filing.
Sangwan spent the summer of 2017 looking for a job . When she did not find one ,
she applied for unemployment benefits on September 8. Her application was granted, and
her account was backdated one week, which is generally permitted under Minnesota
Statutes, section 268.07, subd. 3b(a) (2018). On September 28, 2017, Sangwan visited the
DEED lobby again, this time seeking to backdate her account to June 11, 2017, and to
request benefits for the weeks between June 11 and her original account date . Sangwan
claimed that she learned during her September 8 visit to DEED that the information she
received earlier (to delay filing) was erroneous and that she would have been eligible for

3
an account on June 11 . She argued that t he erroneous information that the DEED
representatives gave her prevented her from applying for benefits and that she should
therefore be allowed to backdate her account to when she was first eligible.
DEED determined that Sangwan was ineligible for the June 11 backdate, and
Sangwan challenged the determination. Following a hearing, a ULJ found that DEED did
not prevent Sangwan from applying for an account and affirmed DEED’s determination.
Sangwan appealed the ULJ’s de cision to this court, which reversed and remanded with
instructions to the ULJ to make additional findings. Sangwan v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ.
Dev., A18-0171, 2018 WL 4201216 (Minn. App. 2018). In the fall of 2018, after a hearing
before a ULJ on remand, the ULJ found Sangwan ineligible for the backdate she requested.
Sangwan appealed the ULJ’s decision to this court.
Shortly before the ULJ issued the decision on remand, Sangwan visited the DEED
lobby again to request benefits for the period between June and August of 2018. Sangwan
had not renewed her account, applied for a new account, nor made any request for benefits
since September 2017, but she argued that this was only because of the misinformation she
received in 2017. DEED found Sangwan ineligible for benefits for the summer of 2018 .
A ULJ affirmed that decision, Sangwan appealed to this court, and this court consolidated
Sangwan’s two appeals.
D E C I S I O N
When reviewing a ULJ’s decision, we view factual findings “in a light most
favorable to the decision,” and we will not disturb the findings “so long as there is evidence
in the record that substantially supports them.” Gonzalez Diaz v. Three Rivers Cmty.

4
Action, Inc., 917 N.W.2d 813, 815-16 (Minn. App. 2018). We defer to the ULJ’s credibility
determinations, but we review de novo the ULJ’s interpretation of the unemployment
statutes and the ultimate question of an applicant’s eligibility for benefits . Id. at 816;
Neumann v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 844 N.W.2d 736, 738 (Minn. App. 2014).
I.
In the first case before us, Sangwan challenges the ULJ’s determination that she is
not eligible to backdate her 2017 unemployment -benefits account to June 11 . Sangwan
argues that she would have applied in June when she was first eligible if she had not
received erroneous informa tion from DEED representatives on May 8 and August 22,
2017,1 and that this misinformation amounted to the department preventing her from filing
an application.
Generally, under the unemployment -compensation statute, “[a]n application for
unemployment benefits is effective the Sunday of the calendar week that the application
was filed.” Minn. Stat. § 268.07, subd. 3b(a) . The statute, however, also provides that
“[i]f an individual attempted to file an application for unemployment benefits, but was
prevented from filing an application by the department, the application is effective the
Sunday of the calendar week the individual first attempted to file an application.” Id.
In the opinion issued in Sangwan’s previous appeal, this court stated that “if
Sangwan attempted to apply for unemployment benefits, but was prevented from doing so

1 During the ULJ hearing in the second case, Sangwan alleged that she also received
misinformation on October 5, 2017. While this would have occurred within the timeline
of events for the first case, Sangwan did not make the allegation in the first case, and the
ULJ did not consider it.

5
by virtue of being given misinformation by DEED, then the prevented -from-filing
exception must apply as a matter of law .” Sangwan, 2018 WL 4201216 at *3 (citing
Morales v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 713 N.W.2d 882, 884 (Minn. App. 2006)). This
court then reversed and remanded because the record and the ULJ’s findings were
insufficient to determine whether the exception applies. This court instructed the ULJ to
(1) make a finding of fact as to whether Sangwan received misinformation from DEED ;
(2) determine whether there were written materials in the record that correctly advised
Sangwan; and (3) more thoroughly explain the reasoning behind any credibility
determinations. Id.
In the ULJ’s decision following this court’s remand, the ULJ found that DEED “did
not advise Sangwan to wait or delay applying for unemployment benefits” on May 8, and
that Sangwan “did not make an in -person visit to th e Department on August 22, 2017 .”
The ULJ then concluded that “[t]he Department did not prevent Sangwan from filing an
account for unemployment benefits before September 8, 2017.”
The ULJ’s findings are based on documentary evidence and testimony from
Sangwan and Beth Bailey, a DEED program manager . With respect to the finding that
DEED did not advise Sangwan to wait or delay applying for unemployment benefits on
May 8, the ULJ cited the following evidence: (1) Sangwan did not take any notes on her
visits to DEED and could not recall whether “she met with a man or woman”; (2) the DEED
representatives’ electronic log note regarding the May 8 lobby visit read only “Lobby visit:
discussed account status and issues.”; and (3) Bailey’s testimony that DEED
representatives are trained to encourage applicants to apply, even when in doubt about

6
eligibility, and it was not likely that the DEED employee of nine years with whom Sangwan
met advised her to delay. With respect to the finding that Sangwan did not visit the DEED
lobby on August 22, and thus was not misinformed on that day, the ULJ relied on (1) the
fact that there is no electroni c log note for that day; and (2) Bailey’s testimony that it is
highly unlikely that the employee with whom Sangwan thinks she spoke would advise her
to delay filing.
The documentary evidence does not support Sangwan’s version of events, but it also
does not conclusively show that DEED did not misi nform Sangwan. The log note for
Sangwan’s May 8 visit does not identify the issues that were discussed nor in any way
indicate that Sangwan was not told that she should wait to apply , and the absence of a log
note for August 22 does not prove that Sangwan did not visit the DEED lobby that day .
The ULJ ’s findings , therefore, are ultimately based on the testimonial evidence , a nd
whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence depend s on the ULJ’s
credibility determinations.
“When the credibility of an involved party or witness testifying in an evidentiary
hearing has a significant effect on the outcome of a decision, the [ULJ] must set out the
reason for crediting or discrediting that testimony .” Eley v. Southshore Invs ., Inc., 845
N.W.2d 216, 221 (Minn. App. 2014) (quoting Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(a) (2014)).
The ULJ set out the following reasons for crediting Bailey’s testimony and discrediting
Sangwan’s testimony regarding the May 8 visit:
Sangwan took no notes during her visits to the Department, and
could not remember who she met with on May 8, 2017, or if
she met with a man or woman. . . . Bailey was credible because

7
of her experience as a customer service representative and as
someone who has trained customer service representatives.

With respect to August 22, 2017, the ULJ set out the following reasons:
There is no document to support that Sangwan received advice
by the Department to delay filing for benefits, and Sangwan
took no notes during her Department visits. The experienced
Department employees who assisted Sangwan in person, on the
other hand, created notes on the Department’s electronic record
keeping system, and those notes do not show any such advice
given to Sangwan . It is not likely that on two different
occasions (more than three months apart) two separate and
experienced Department employees both advised Sangwan to
delay filing her application for unemployment benefits, which
would be against their training.

The documentary evidence is consistent with Bailey’s testimony, and these reasons
sufficiently explain the ULJ’s credibility determinations.
The ULJ made the necessary factual findings, admitted necessary documents to the
record, and provided the rationale for credibility determinations . In short, t he ULJ
corrected the deficiencies for whi ch this court remanded this case . Because the ULJ set
out sufficient reasons for crediting Bailey’s testimony , we defer to the ULJ’s credibility
determination. And because Bailey’s credible testimony is substantial evidence that
supports the ULJ’s conclusion that DEED did not prevent Sangwan from applying for an
account for unemployment benefits before September 8, 2017, we affirm. Neumann, 844
N.W.2d at 738.
II.
In the second case before us, Sangwan claims that she is entitled to benefits for the
summer months of 2018. She did not have an active benefits account during those months

8
and had not filed weekly requests for benefits since September of 2017, but she asserts that
she failed to file weekly benefit requests because she relied on the erroneous advice from
DEED that, as a teacher, she should not seek benefits during the summer. Sangwan argues
that this misinformation constitutes good cause for failing to apply and file weekly benefit
requests.
To receive unemployment benefits, an applicant must file continued requests for
benefits each week. Minn. Stat. § 268.0865, subd. 1 (2018) . The requests “must be filed
within four calendar weeks following the week for which payment is requested.” Id., subd.
3 (2018) (electronic filing); id., subd. 4 (2018) (filing by mail). A request made more than
four calendar weeks after the week for which b enefits are requested will not be accepted,
unless the applicant can show good cause for failing to file within that period. Id., subd. 3
(electronic filing); id., subd. 4 (filing by mail) . “Good cause” is defined as “a reason that
would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from filing a continued
request for unemployment benefits within the time periods required .” Id., subd. 5 (2018).
The ULJ found that Sangwan did not show good cause for failing to file for benefits.
Whether a n applicant has demonstrated good cause is a legal conclusion that
incorporates factual findings, which must have adequate evidentiary support in the record.
Zepp v. Arthur Treacher Fish & Chips, Inc. , 272 N.W.2d 262, 263 ( Minn. 1978)
(evaluating whether employee’s quitting was with good cause as a question of law, which
must have reasonable support in the findings, and the findings must have the requisite
evidentiary support). Therefore, we review the question of good cause de novo, but we

9
rely on the UL J’s factual findings to the extent that they are supported by substantial
evidence in the record.
As in the prior case, the ULJ determined that Sangwan’s claimed receipt of
misinformation “is not be lievable testimony,” because the misinformation is contrary to
DEED policy and thus unlikely to come from experienced DEED employees. The ULJ
also reasoned that the alleged misinformation would have been provided months before
Sangwan knew whether she would be employed in the summer of 2018, and a reasonable
person would seek information at the time of the layoff, rather than rely on information
received months earlier in a different matter. The ULJ adequately explained the rationale
for the determination that Sangwan’s testimony that she r eceived misinformation was not
credible, and t he determination that Sangwan’s testimony was not credible demonstrates
that Sangwan did not have good cause for failing to file continued requests for benefits
during the summer of 2018.2
Affirmed.

2 We also note that t he ULJ’s November 7, 2017 decision expressly informed Sangwan
that she was eligible to receive benefits at the beginning of the summer in 2017 and should
have applied then. Also, in her petition for certiorari in her first appeal to this court ,
Sangwan alleged that DEED staff gave her erroneous information, which implies that she
had come to understand in 2017 that she was eligible to receive benefits as soon as she
became unemployed. Consequently, e ven if DEED had misinformed Sangwan i n the
summer of 2017, she cannot reasonably claim that she was still under the impression that
she was ineligible for benefits during the summer of 2018 . A reasonable person in
Sangwan’s position would not rely on information that she had alleged to be erroneous.