In the Matter of: Justin Bennek.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by
Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-0714

In the Matter of: Justin Bennek.

Filed April 12, 2021
Affirmed
Bjorkman, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File Nos. 37758194-3, 37775315-3

Justin Bennek, Coon Rapids, Minnesota (pro se relator)

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

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Bryan,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BJORKMAN, Judge
Relator challenges the decision by an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was
ineligible for unemployment benefits, arguing that (1) the evidence does not support the
ULJ’s finding that relator was not available for or actively seeking suitable employment
and (2) the telephonic hearing was unfair because of relator’s medical condition. We
affirm.

2
FACTS
On October 18, 2019, relator Justin Bennek was laid off from his full-time, seasonal
employment with TruGreen. A few days later, he was laid off from his part-time, seasonal
employment with Bunker Hills Golf Cour se. Bennek subsequently established a benefit
account1 with respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Ec onomic
Development (the department), and began requesting unemployment benefits.
The department determined that relator was ineligible for unemployment benefits
because he was not actively searching for work. Bennek appealed . Following the
December 27 hearing, the ULJ found that “Bennek did not do anything to try to find another
job” from November 3 to December 13. The ULJ further found that from December 14 ,
through the date of the hearing, Bennek “did not take any steps to contact employers or
submit job applications because he was not genuinely interested in finding a job.” Based
on these findings, the ULJ determined Bennek was not eligible for unemployment benefits
from November 3 through the date of the hearing because he was not available for or
actively seeking suitable employment . Bennek requested reconsideration, and the ULJ
affirmed her decision. Bennek appeals by a writ of certiorari.
DECISION
We review a ULJ’s decision to determine whether a party’s substantial rights were
violated because the decision was made upon unlawful procedure, affected by legal error,
or unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the record as a whole. Minn. Stat.

1 Bennek also had a benefit account from the previous year when he was laid off from
TruGreen.

3
§ 268.105, subd. 7(d) (20 20). We view the ULJ’s findings in the light most favorable to
the decision, giving deference to the ULJ’s credibility determinations. Peterson v. Nw.
Airlines, Inc. , 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App. 2008) , review denied (Minn. Oct. 1,
2008). And we “will not disturb the ULJ’s factual findings when the evidence substantially
sustains them.” Id.
I. Substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s determination that Bennek was not
available for or actively seeking suitable employment.

To be eligible for unemployment benefits, an applicant must be “available for” and
“actively seeking suitable employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(4), (5) (2020). An
applicant is “available for suitable employment” when he is “ ready, willing, and able to
accept suitable employment. ” Id., subd. 15(a) (2020). “Suitable employment means
employment in the applicant’s labor market that is reasonably related to the applicant’s
qualifications.” Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23a(a) (2020). An applicant may not
otherwise restrict his availability for employment. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 15(a).
An applicant is “actively seeking suitable employment” when he makes
“reasonable, diligent efforts” that a person “in similar circumstances would make if
genuinely interested in obtaining suitable employment under the existing conditions in the
labor market.” Id., subd. 16(a) (2020 ). This requirement is not met when an applicant
limits his search to “positions that are not available or are above the applicant’s training,
experience, and qualifications.” Id. Rather, all applicants —including those who are
seasonally unemployed—must seek other suitable employment. Id., subd. 16(c) (2020).

4
Whether an applicant is available for and actively seeks suitable employment are
questions of fact. Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Serv., 244 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Minn. 1976).
Bennek challenges the ULJ’s findings that he was neither available for nor actively
seeking suitable employment. He argues that the ULJ’s determination is not supported by
the record because he “updated my resume,” “looked for opportunities that were available
on the regular online job search websites,” “reached out” to former colleagues, and “did
searches of golf courses and their staffing needs.” The record defeats Bennek’s argument.
The online unemployment-insurance system (UIS) asked Bennek every week if he
had looked for work. During every week in November, Bennek answered the question,
“No.” And when asked more detailed questions regarding the third and fourth weeks of
November, Bennek responded that he was not doing anything to look for work. Although
Bennek testified that he did not understand the directions on the department’s website, he
admitted that these answers were true.
The record also reflects that Bennek did not actively seek employm ent during
December. He did begin answering , “Yes,” when the UIS asked whether he was looking
for work. And he testified that he searched online for positions in the golf-course industry
and considered looking at other industries “to see if maybe I could branch out as a last
resort.” But, as the ULJ found, Bennek “could not remember the name of one of the two
websites he claimed he used for his job search.” Bennek did not claim that no suitable
employment was available; he testified that he did not apply for any positions because he
“just wanted to keep my options open.” And when asked by the ULJ if there was “anything

5
else you’ve done recently to look for jobs that we haven’t talked about,” Bennek answered,
“Nope.”
Substantial evidence supports the ULJ’s findings that Bennek did not apply for any
jobs or take any other steps to obtain suitable employment. On this record, there is no basis
to disturb the ULJ’s determination that Bennek is not entitled to unemployment be nefits
because he was not available for or actively seeking suitable employment during the
relevant time frame. See McNeilly v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 712
(Minn. App. 2010) (affirming a determination that a landscaper who had applied for
unemployment benefits during the off -season had not actively sought employment when
his job-search efforts consisted of “ask[ing] around for work”).
II. Bennek received a fair hearing.
A ULJ is obligated to “assist all parties in the presentation of evidence.” Minn. R.
3310.2921 (2019). Bennek argues that the ULJ did not meet this obligation because he
was “not able to explain my job search properly,” was “put on the defensive immediately,”
and his ADHD and other medical conditions affected his abil ity to participate in a
telephonic hearing. This argument is unpersuasive for two reasons.
First, Bennek provides no legal support for his contention that the telephonic format
denied him a fair hearing. We generally do not consider arguments that lack legal support.
Schoepke v. Alexander Smith & Sons Carpet Co., 187 N.W.2d 133, 135 (Minn. 1971); see
Ganguli v. Univ. of Minn. , 512 N.W.2d 918, 919 n.1 (Minn. App. 1994) (declining to
address allegations unsupported by legal analysis or citation). Second, Bennek does not
explain how the hearing was unfair, or how his medical conditions affected his ability to

6
participate in the hearing. The record reflects that Bennek did not tell the ULJ that he did
not understand the proceedings or the questions posed to him. And he did not ask the ULJ
for assistance. On reconsideration, the ULJ expressly rejected Bennek’s contention that
his medical conditions prevented him from accurately and completely responding to
questions. In short, the record demonstrates that the ULJ provided Bennek every
opportunity to develop the record and explain his situation. See Ywswf v. Teleplan Wireless
Servs., Inc. , 726 N.W.2d 525, 529 (Minn. App. 2007) (stating that the ULJ has an
obligation to conduct a hearing that clearly and fully develops the relevant facts and
preserves the parties’ rights to a fair hearing). Bennek received a fair hearing.
Affirmed.