Shawn O’Toole, 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This opinion will be unpublished and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
A19-2098

Shawn O’Toole,
Relator,

vs.

Wings Financial Credit Union,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed June 29, 2020
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 37599510-3

Shawn O’Toole, St. Paul, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Wings Financial Credit Union c/o TALX UC M Services, Inc., St. Louis, Missouri
(respondent employer)

Anne B. Froelich, Departme nt of Employment and Econom ic Development, St. Paul,
Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decide d by Worke, Presiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and
Jesson, Judge.

2
U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N
JESSON, Judge
Relator Shawn O’Toole applied for un employment benefits from respondent
Department of Employment and Economic Deve lopment. After the department notified
O’Toole that he was ineligible, he appealed th at determination. But his appeal was filed
ten days too late and dismissed. Because the statutory deadline is absolute, we affirm.
FACTS
In September 2019, relator Shawn O’T oole applied for unemployment benefits
through respondent Department of Employm ent and Economic Development (DEED).
O’Toole had been working at Wings Financial Credit Union as a loan officer until July 19,
2019. On September 24, 2019, DEED mailed a determination of ineligibility to O’Toole.
The mailed notice included a warning that the “determination will become final unless an
appeal is filed by Monday, October 14, 2019.”1
On October 24, 2019—ten days after th e deadline—O’Toole submitted a request
online to appeal his ineligibility determination. He explained his delay in filing the appeal,
writing: “I didn’t realize I was deemed ineligible until today. I am on the verge of financial
ruin and have been filing for benefits without any warnings or outstanding tasks. I didn’t
know.” The next day, an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissed his appeal because he
filed it after the 20-day statutory deadline had passed.

1 O’Toole did not change his address or provide any other mailing address during the
relevant time period. O’Toole does not contes t that the notice was ma iled to his correct
address.

3
A little over a week later, O’Toole timely requested reconsideration of the dismissal.
He explained that he “was out of town when the [mailed] notice was delivered,” and he
saw no notice about a deadline on the website. He also recounted issues he had with his
former boss that led up to his “choice to qu it” and his financial struggles as a result of
losing his income. About a month later, the ULJ affirmed the earlier order dismissing
O’Toole’s appeal as untimely. This certiorari appeal follows.
D E C I S I O N
O’Toole challenges the ULJ’s dismissal of his appeal as untimely. According to
O’Toole, he did not receive actual notice of his inelig ibility determination before the
statutory deadline, and he had a good reason for accepting the offered severance package
from his employer. The ULJ concluded that O’ Toole’s appeal was untimely and that the
statutory time period is absolute, regardless of any alleged mitigating circumstances.
On review, we “may affirm the deci sion [of the ULJ], remand for further
proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision if the substan tial rights of the relator have
been prejudiced.” Stassen v. Lone Mounta in Truck Leasing, LLC , 814 N.W.2d 25, 29
(Minn. App. 2012). We review de novo whether the ULJ properly dismissed an appeal as
untimely. Godbout v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev. , 827 N.W.2d 799, 802 (Minn.
App. 2013). And we “will rely on findings that are substantially supported by the record”
and review “findings of fact in the light most favorable to the ULJ’s decision.”
Fay v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 860 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Minn. App. 2015) (quotations
omitted). But when a ULJ dismisses an appeal as untimely—as is the case here—the only
question before this court is whether the ULJ erred in dismissing the appeal, and this court

4
cannot address the merits of the appeal. See Christgau v. Fine , 27 N.W.2d 193, 199
(Minn. 1947).
The procedure for an applicant to apply fo r unemployment benefits is set forth in
the statute. After an applicant has submitte d a request for benefits, DEED must issue a
determination that the applicant is either eligible or inelig ible. Minn. Stat. § 268.101,
subd. 2 (2018). Once DEED sends the determ ination, the applicant has 20 calendar days
to appeal. Id., subd. 2(f). If the applicant fails to appeal within 20 days, the determination
becomes final. Id. The statute also requires the ULJ to “issue a decision dismissing the
appeal as untimely if the judg e decides the appeal was not f iled within 20 calendar days
after the sending of the determination.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(c) (2018).
Minnesota caselaw reflects the statutory ma ndate that any appeal filed after the
20-day window is untimely and must be dismissed by the ULJ for lack of jurisdiction. See
Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72, 73 (Minn. App. 1984); see also Dep’t of Emp’t
Sec. v. Minn. Drug Prods., Inc., 104 N.W.2d 640, 643 (Minn. 1960). “The statutory time
for an appeal from a department determination is absolute.” Cole, 347 N.W.2d at 73.
Here, DEED mailed O’Toole a determinat ion of ineligibility on September 24,
2019. The notice also included a warning about the 20-day appeal period, explaining that
the decision would be final unless he tim ely appealed. And O’Toole appealed on
October 24, 2019. O’Toole does not contest any of these date s in this appeal. Because
O’Toole’s appeal was submitted after the 20-day deadline, under the statute, the ULJ was
required to dismiss it as untimely. See Cole, 347 N.W.2d at 73.

5
Still, O’Toole asserts that the ULJ erred by dismissing his a ppeal. Th e crux of
O’Toole’s argument is that he lacked actual notice of the determination of ineligibility
before the statutory deadline.2 But Minnesota courts have repeatedly held that actual notice
is not required. See Grewe v. Comm’r of Econ. Sec. , 385 N.W.2d 894, 895 (Minn.
App. 1986) (“The statute does not require that a claimant have actual notice of the
determination for the appeal period to run.”); see Johnson v. Metro. Med. Ctr. ,
395 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986) (“Th e statute does not require actual notice for
the appeal period to run.”). And while O’T oole contends that he did not get the mailed
notice because he was not home at the time and the post office did not deliver his mail, the
statute provides no “good cause” exception to excuse a filing delay. See Jackson v. Minn.
Dep’t of Manpower Servs. , 207 N.W.2d 62, 63 (Minn. 1973); see also Kennedy v. Am.
Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Minn. App. 2006) (“[T]here are no statutory
provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period.”). The time period for the
appeal started when the determination was mailed, regardless of when it was received. See
Stassen, 814 N.W.2d at 29.

2 O’Toole also asserts that he thought he was eligible for be nefits based on what he was
told when he initially called DEED, suggesting that he was not looking for a denial letter.
But there is no process in the statute to permit verbal communication of eligibility
determinations, and the statute is clear that equitable remedi es, like promissory estoppel,
do not apply to unemployment benefits. See Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 3 (2018) (“There
is no equitable or common law denial or allowance of unemployment benefits.”).

6
In sum, while the circum stances for O’Toole may be unfortunate, the statute
provides no exception or extens ion to the appeal period. See Cole, 347 N.W.2d at 73.
Because O’Toole’s appeal was untimely, the ULJ’s dismissal was not erroneous.3
Affirmed.

3 The remainder of O’Toole’s argume nts focus on the substance of his
unemployment-benefits claim, including his a lleged discrimination at work, why he quit,
and his financial situation. But these alleged facts are not relevant to whether his appeal
was timely filed. And when an appeal is dismissed as untimely, the only question this court
considers on appeal is whether the ULJ erred by dismissing the appeal. See Christgau,
27 N.W.2d at 199.