Nancy Peterson, Relator,

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-0942

Nancy Peterson,
Relator,

vs.

Electrolux Home Products Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed March 1, 2021
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 38384073-3

Nancy Peterson, St. Cloud, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Electrolux Home Products Inc., St. Cloud, Minnesota (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Frisch, Pr esiding Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Relator Nancy Peterson challenges the decision by an unemployment-law judge
(ULJ) dismissing her administrative appeal regarding her unemployment benefits as

2
untimely. Because the appeal was untimely, the ULJ had no jurisdiction to decide the case’s
merits. We affirm.
FACTS
Peterson worked for respondent Electrolux Home Products Inc. at its St. Cloud plant
from 1988 until the plant closed in November 2019. In January 2020, Peterson found work
as a scheduler at CentraCare St. Cloud Hospita l, but she left that job on March 9 because
she found it difficult to hear while talki ng on the phone due to the noise from other
schedulers in the office.
On March 18, 2020, Peterson applied for unemployment benefits. On April 6, 2020,
respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) sent
Peterson a determination of ineligibility that temporarily reduced her benefits by $721.60
per week. The reduction in benefits was based on Peterson’s severance pay from
Electrolux. The letter stated that “[t]his dete rmination will become final unless an appeal
is filed by Monday April 27, 2020.”
On May 5, 2020, DEED issued a determ ination of ineligibility on the issue of
Peterson’s separation from CentraCare, sta ting that Peterson was ineligible for
unemployment compensation because she quit.
Peterson filed an appeal on May 11, 2020 . In it, she challe nged the Electrolux
determination of ineligibility. When asked why she filed her appeal late, she explained that
she thought that she was not eligible for unemployment compensation until her severance
ended in March.
The ULJ dismissed Peterson’s appeal on May 12, 2020, because Peterson did not
timely appeal the Electrolux determinati on of ineligibility. Peterson requested

3
reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed that Peterson’s appeal was untimely, explaining that
the statutory time period for an appeal is “absolute, regardless of any mitigating
circumstances.”
Peterson’s certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
“[A] ULJ’s decision to dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law, subject
to de novo review.” Godbout v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 827 N.W.2d 799, 802 (Minn.
App. 2013).
A determination of ineligibility “is final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant or
employer within 20 calendar days after sending.” Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) (2020).
“The statute does not require actual notice for the appeal period to run.” Johnson v. Metro.
Med. Ctr. , 395 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986). The ULJ must dismiss untimely
appeals for lack of jurisdiction. Cole v. Holiday Inns, Inc., 347 N.W.2d 72, 73 (Minn. App.
1984); accord Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(c) (2018) (“The unemployment law judge
must issue a decision dismissing the appeal as untimely if the judge decides the appeal was
not filed within 20 calendar days after the sending of the determination.”). The statutory
time period “is absolute and unambiguous,” Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 244 N.W.2d
663, 666 (Minn. 1976), and “there are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions
to the appeal period,” Kennedy v. Am. Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 740 (Minn.
App. 2006).
Thus, when a ULJ dismisses an appeal as untimely, the only question before us is
whether the ULJ erred by dismissing the appeal and we cannot address the appeal’s merits.

4
Christgau v. Fine, 27 N.W.2d 193, 199 (Minn. 1947). Nor can we grant equitable relief to
permit an untimely appeal. Cole, 347 N.W.2d at 73.
We conclude that the ULJ did not err by dismissing the appeal because Peterson
appealed the Electrolux determ ination of ineligibility outs ide of the 20- day statutory
window. See Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f). The April 6, 2020 Electrolux determination
of ineligibility proper ly informed Peterson of her right to appeal by April 27, 2020. 1
Peterson did not file her appeal until May 11, 2020.
Peterson argues that the ULJ erred because the decision was made without allowing
Peterson the “chance to explain [her] side at the hearing.” But the ULJ was statutorily
required to dismiss the appeal as untimely; there is no exception to this requirement. See
Kennedy, 714 N.W.2d at 740. Peterson’s late fili ng divested the ULJ of jurisdiction to
consider her appeal. See Cole , 347 N.W.2d at 73 (“An untimely appeal must be
dismissed . . . for lack of jurisdiction.”).
We note that this decision applies only to Peterson’s appeal of the determination of
ineligibility related to her employment with Electrolux. As DEED acknowledged in its
appellate brief, Peterson’s May 11 appeal is al so properly construed as an appeal of the
May 8, 2020 determination of ineligibility related to her employment at CentraCare and
Peterson timely appealed that determination.
Affirmed.

1 Because April 26, 2020, fe ll on a Sunday, the deadline to appeal moved to Monday,
April 27.