Barbara Jacobson, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A20-1052

Barbara Jacobson,
Relator,

vs.

County of Dakota,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed April 19, 2021
Affirmed
Connolly, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 39398919-3

Barbara J. Jacobson, Strandburg, South Dakota (pro se relator)

Kathryn M. Keena, Acting Dakota County Attorney, William M. Topka, Assistant County
Attorney, Hastings, Minnesota (for respondent county)

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

Considered and decided by Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Klaphake, Judge.

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

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
CONNOLLY, Judge
Relator challenge s the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that
relator was ineligible for unemployment benefit s, arguing that a pension that was
contributed to by a base -period employer prior to, but not during , the base period should
not be included in the calculation for unemployment benefits. Because we see no error in
the ULJ’s statutory interpretation, we affirm.
FACTS
Pro se relator Barbara Jacobson retired from employment with respondent Dakota
County in 2016 . During her full -time employment from 1995 through 2016, Dakota
County contributed to her pension. After her retirement, relator began receiving monthly
pension benefits from the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA) in the gross
amount of $1,956.11 a month.
Post-retirement, relator worked several temporary positions, incl uding one with
Dakota County. In 2019, relator worked for Dakota County on a temporary basis , and
while the county had previously contributed to her pension before her retirement, it did not
contribute to her pension in 2019. In 2020, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, relator’s
scheduled job with Data Recog nition Corporation was cancelled and the business was
closed. As a result, relator applied for unemployment benefits on April 5, 2020. At this
point, relator was still receiving her monthly PERA pension.
On May 7, 2020, a respondent Department of Employment and Economic
Development administrative clerk issued a determination of ineligibility because, at the

3
time she filed for unemployment, relator was receiving a pension that Dakota County
contributed to and Dakota County was one of her employers d uring her base period. The
agency determination stated that the relator was ineligible for any amount of
unemployment benefits.
The ULJ agreed with the agency’s determination , and relator filed a request for
reconsideration. The ULJ issued an order affirming his decision. Relator challenges that
decision.
DECISION
Both parties agree that relator was receiving a pension in 2020 and that a base-period
employer, Dakota County, had previously contributed to the pension, although not during
the 2019 base period. If the relevant facts are not in dispute, this court applies “a de novo
standard of review to the ULJ’s interpretation of the unemployment statutes and to the
ultimate question of whether an applicant is eligible to receive unemployment benefits.”
Menyweather v. Fedtech, Inc., 872 N.W.2d 543, 545 (Minn. App. 2015).
“An applicant is not eligible to receive unemployment benefits for any wee k the
applicant is receiving [or] will receive . . . a pension . . . from any plan contributed to by a
base period employer.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3c (2020). When the plain language
of the statute is clear, th is court must apply the plain language and does not need to look
elsewhere to assist in its interpretation. Cocchiarella v. Driggs , 884 N.W.2d 621, 624
(Minn. 2016). And when construing the statute, this court should not add words or meaning
to a statute that was either purposely omi tted or inadvertently overlooked. Premier Bank
v. Becker Dev., LLC, 785 N.W.2d 753, 760 (Minn. 2010).

4
Here, the plain language of the statute supports the ULJ’s decision. The plain
language of the statute does not require that a base-period employer contribute to a pension
during the base period, it requires only that, at the time that relator is seeking
unemployment benefits, the individual receives a pension to which the base -period
employer contributed to. See Minn. Stat. § 268.08 5, subd. 3c. When relator applied for
unemployment benefits on April 5, 2020, she was receiving $1,956.11 per month from a
pension contributed to by Dakota County. Dakota County was one of her employers during
her base period. Although Dakota County did not contribute to the pension during the base
period, the statute does not specify that an employer must have contributed to the pension
during the base period, so that requirement should not be read into the statute.
Relator also raised two additional legal issues: whether the relator is eligible for
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief,
and Economic Security (CARES) Act, and whether the Minnesota statute conforms to the
Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA). The ULJ did not develop the record with respect
to the PUA issue, or address it in his decision. Therefore, that issue is not before this court.
See Thiele v. Stich, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn. 1988) (declining to consider a question
raised below “if it was not passed on by the” factfinder (quotation omitted)); Peterson v.
Ne. Bank—Minneapolis, 805 N.W.2d 878, 883 (Minn. App. 2011) (declining to review an
issue not considered by a ULJ and noting the factual nature of the unemployment-benefits

5

analysis). Regarding FUTA, the act only outlines what the U.S. Secretary of L abor
considers when certifying each year that a state conforms to federal requirements . 26
U.S.C. § 3304 (2018). Thus, it is not directly related to the relator’s benefits.
Affirmed.