In the Matter of: Hayat Muse.

STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
A20-1330

In the Matter of: Hayat Muse.

Filed February 22, 2021
Reversed
Segal, Chief Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 39175517-6

Gregory R. Merz, Lathrop GPM LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (for relator Hayat Muse)

Keri A. Phi llips, Katrina Gulstad, Anne B. Froelich, Department of Employment and
Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department of Employment
and Economic Development)

Keith Ellison, Attorney General, Liz Kramer, Solicitor General, Bradley Simon, Ed
Stockmeyer, Assistant Attorneys General, St. Paul, Minnesota (for amicus curiae State of
Minnesota)

Considered and decided by Segal, Chief Judge; Hooten, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
SYLLABUS
Minnesota high school students are not categorically ineligible to receive Pandemic
Unemployment Assistance under the federal Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act, Pub. L. 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020) (CARES Act).
OPINION
SEGAL, Chief Judge
In this certiorari appeal, relator Hayat Muse challenges a determination by an
unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that relator is ineligible for Pandemic Unemployment

2
Assistance (PUA) under the CARES Act because she is a high school student. PUA is one
of the federal financial assistance programs enacted t o provide added unemployment
benefits to help mitigate the financial hardships caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. The
ULJ in this case denied PUA benefits to relator because, under the state unemployment
statute, high school students are not eligible for re gular unemployment benefits . Minn.
Stat. § 268.085, subd. 2(3) (2020). Relator contends that this decision is in conflict with
the unambiguous terms of the CARES Act. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the
decision of the ULJ.
FACTS
Relator Hayat Muse is a high school student who was separated from her part-time
employment at a coffee shop because of the COVID -19 pandemic. Muse applied for
unemployment benefits through respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and
Economic Development (DEED) in March 2020, identifying herself as a high school
student in her application. Muse received PUA benefits for only five weeks.
In May 2020, DEED issued an initial determination of ineligibility stating that Muse
was not eligible for PUA benefits becau se she is a high school student. Muse filed an
administrative appeal . Following a n evidentiary hearing, a ULJ issued a decision
determining Muse ineligible for PUA benefits because of the ineligibility of high school
students for regular unemployment -compensation benefits under state law . As a
consequence, Muse received no addit ional payments and was ordered to pay back the
$1,170 she had received in PUA benefits. A second ULJ affirmed the decision after Muse
sought reconsideration.

3
Muse filed this certiorari appeal and a motion, jointly filed with DEED, to expedite
the court’s consideration of the appeal. In the joint motion, DEED represented that it will
apply this court’s decision , both retrospectively and prospectively, with regard to the
eligibility of Minnesota high school students for PUA benefits.1 We granted the joint
motion and a subsequent motion by the Minnesota Attorney General to file an amicus brief
in support of Muse’s position. Following expedited briefing and oral argument, we issued
a December 1, 2020 order revers ing the ULJ’s decision, with an opinion to follow . This
opinion sets forth our analysis in support of that order.
ISSUE
Are Minnesota high school students categorically ineligible for PUA benefits?
ANALYSIS
This appeal is limited to the narrow but impactful issue of whether Minnesota high
school students are disqualified from receiving PUA benefits because high school students
are not eligible for regular unemployment benefits under state law . We apply a de novo
standard of review to administrative agencies’ interpretations of federal statutes such as the
CARES Act. In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare, 883 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Minn.
2016).

1 DEED’s agreement stemmed from a settlement agreement in federal litigation. Relator
was a plaintiff in a now-dismissed federal lawsuit challenging DEED’s denial of PUA
benefits to high school students. See Youthprise v. Minn. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ . Dev.,
No. 20-CV-02087 (D. Minn.). The federal lawsuit was dismissed in October 2020 pursuant
to a stipulation that included DEED’s agreement to seek expedited consideration of this
appeal and to apply this court’s decision retrospectively and prospectively.

4
The CARES Act, signed into law on March 27, 2020, “creates a new temporary
federal program called Pandemic Unemployment Assistance (PUA) that in general
provides up to 39 weeks of unemployment benefits, and provides funding to states for the
administration of the program.” U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insuran ce Program
Letter No. 16-20 (April 5, 2020) (UIPL 16-20), at 1. Under the Act, the Secretary of Labor
“shall provide to any covered individual unemployment benefit assistance while such
individual is unemployed, partially employed, or unable to work for t he weeks of such
unemployment with respect to which the individual is not entitled to any other employment
compensation . . . or waiting period credit.” CARES Act § 2102(b).
A “covered individual” eligible to collect PUA benefits is an individual who (1) “is
not eligible for regular compensation or extended benefits under State or Federal law or
pandemic emergency unemployment compensation,” 2 and (2) self -certifies that she is
“otherwise able to work and available for work within the meaning of applicable State law,
except the individual is unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to
work because” of one of 11 reasons related to the COVID -19 pandemic. 3 CARES Act
§ 2102(a)(3)(A). The PUA program extended economic assistance to people who lost
work due to the pandemic but would not be eligib le for regular unemployment-

2 Pandemic emergency unemployment compensation (PEUC) is available to individuals
who have received all regular unemployment benefits available to them for a particular
benefit year. See generally CARES Act § 2107. Because Minnesota high school students
are not eligible for regular unemployment benefits, they cannot exhaust them and qualify
for PEUC.
3 The definition of “covered individual” contains several additional inclusions and
exclusions, none of which are relevant here. See CARES Act § 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(II),
(a)(3)(B).

5
compensation benefits, such as “gig economy” workers who are ineligible for regular
unemployment benefits because they are classified as independent contractors and not
employees. UIPL 16-20 Attachment 1, at I-6; UIPL 16-20 Change 1 (April 27, 2020), at
I-8. As the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) has explained, “PUA is a benefit of last
resort for anyone who does not qualify for other [unemployment-compensation] programs
and who would be able and available to work but for one or more of the COVID-19 related
reasons listed in section 2102 of the CARES Act.” UIPL 16-20 Change 1, at I-8.
The USDOL issued guidance on how to administer the PUA program in UIPL 16-
20 and four subsequent UIPLs referred to as Changes 1 - 4 to UIPL 16-20. Relevant to this
appeal, Change 1 to UIPL 16-20 provided an answer to the question of whether a full-time
student who is laid off from part-time employment due to the pandemic (and the part-time
income is not her primary source of income) can be eligible for PUA benefits:
Answer: Yes. Provided a full -time student who worked part -
time is unemployed, partially unemployed, or unable or
unavailable to work because of one of the COVID -19 related
reasons in section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I) of the CARES Act, then
he or she may be eligible for PUA.

The requirement that the employment be the “principal source
of income” . . . does not apply to eligibility for PUA.

UIPL 16-20 Change 1, at I-7 (Question 28). The guidance also makes clear that there is
not a minimum age to be eligible to receive PUA benefits. UIPL 16-20 Change 2 (July 21,
2020), at I-3 - I-4 (Question 6). The USDOL noted that federal or state laws relating to the
employment of minors could impact eligibility, but concluded that “[i]f federal and state

6
laws . . . do not make it illegal to employ the individual, and the individual meets the state’s
able and available requirements, the individual may be eligible for PUA.” 4 Id.
The USDOL guidance further provides that, in the event of questions concerning
coverage or administration of the federal benefits that are not answered in the CARES Act
or correspondin g UIPLs, states should consult the regulations governing Disaster
Unemployment Assistance (DUA), 20 C.F.R. Part 625. UIPL 16-20 Change 1, at 2. DUA
is a preexisting, ongoing federal program that provides unemployment assi stance to
eligible persons impact ed by a major disaster. 42 U.S.C. § 5177; 20 C.F.R. § 625.1(a).
Congress provided that the regulations governing DUA apply to the PUA program
“[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [section 2102 of the CARES Act] or to the extent there
is a conflict between [section 2102] and [part] 625.” CARES Act § 2102(h). Finally, only
after applying the provisions of the CARES Act, the UIPLs and the DUA regulations (to
the extent not inconsistent with the Act or the UIPLs ) are states to look at their own
unemployment laws in interpreting eligibility for PUA benefits. UIPL 16-20 Change 1 ,
at 2.
With this as background, we turn to the question of whether the ULJ correctly
interpreted the CARES Act in disqualifying Muse from receiving PUA benefits. When
interpreting a federal statute, this court must “give effect to the will of Congress.”
Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc., 777 N.W.2d 755, 758 (Minn. 2010) (quoting Griffin v. Oceanic

4 In connection with this guidance, we note that DEED submitted a question to the USDOL
regarding the high -school eligibility issue, but did not receive a direct response and the
USDOL did not select that specific question for inclusion in the UIPLs.

7
Contractors, Inc., 458 U.S. 564, 570, 102 S. Ct. 3245, 3250 (1982)). If the language of the
statute is clear, we will not look beyond it. Id. “We must ‘presume that [the] legislature
says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.’” Id. (quoting
Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253-54, 112 S. Ct. 1146, 1149 (1992)).
The CARES Act sets out two requirements for PUA eligibility: (1) an individual
must be ineligible for regular unemployment benefits or PEUC benefits and (2) an
individual must self-certify that they are available to work but unable to do so because of
one of 11 reasons related to the COVID-19 pandemic. CARES Act § 2102(a)(3)(A). There
is no dispute that Minnesota high school students meet the first requirement because, under
the Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law, high sch ool students are categorically
ineligible to collect unemployment benefits. Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 2(3) (providing
that an applicant i s ineligible for benefits during any week “ that occurs in a period when
the applicant is a student in attendance at, or on vacation from a secondary school including
the period between academic years or terms”). The second requirement can also be met by
high school students. All it requires is that the student be available for work , but not be
able to work because of one of the listed COVID-19-related reason s. DEED does not
dispute that Muse is ineligible for benefits under state law and lost her part -time
employment because of the pandemic. Muse thus satisfies the two prerequisites and is
thereby eligible for PUA benefits under the plain language of the CARES Act.
DEED, however, urges this court to defer to its interpretation of the CARES Act as
the “only reasonable position that accounts for all of the relevant authorities.” Deference,
however, is only appropriate if the provision being interpreted is ambiguous. In re Cities

8
of Annandale & Maple Lake NPDES/SDS Permit Issuance , 731 N.W.2d 502, 516 (Minn.
2007); see also Abdi v. Dep’t of Emp ’t & Econ. Dev., 749 N.W.2d 812, 815 (Minn. App.
2008) (“[I]f we conclude that the Act and regulations are clear and unambiguous with
respect to the issue before us, DEED’s interpretation is entitled to no deference.”) . For a
provision to be ambiguous, the provision must be capable of tw o or more reasonable
interpretations. Cities of Annandale, 731 N.W.2d at 516. For the reasons set out below,
we conclude that DEED’s proposed interpretation is not reasonable and is, therefore, not
entitled to deference.
DEED’s interpretation is based on language in an attachment to the USDOL
guidance that relates to the processing of PUA claims. UIPL 16-20 Attachment 1, at I-9.
The language relied on by DEED states that “[t]he provisions of the applicable state law
that apply to claims for PUA include . . . [d]isqualification, including disqualifying income
provisions.” Id. DEED argues that “disqualification” is equivalent to “ineligibility,” and
that, because high school students are ineligible for regular unemployment benefits under
Minnesota law, they are also ineligible for PUA benefits. DEED’s reasoning is flawed for
several reasons.
First, DEED’s argument ignores the beginning of the above-quoted section, which
provides that state law applies “consistent with 20 C.F.R. 625.11” of the DUA regulations.
Id. Section 625.11 of the DUA regulations expressly limits the applicability of state law
to only those provisions “as specifically set forth” in that part of the regulations. 20 C.F.R.
§ 625.11. The section of the DUA regulations that relates to disqualification provides, in
relevant part:

9
(b) Disqualification.

(1) An individual shall not be entitled to DUA for any
week after the week in which the individual is reemployed in a
suitable position.

(2) An individual who refuses without good cause to
accept a bona fide offer of reemployment in a position suitable
to the individual . . . shall not be entitled to DUA [benefits]
. . . . For the purposes of this paragraph, a position shall not be
deemed to be suitable for an individual if . . . acceptance for
the position would . . . be inconsistent with any labor standard
. . . of the Federal Unemployment Tax Act , . . . or the
comparable provisions of the applicable State law.

20 C.F.R. § 625.13(b) (emphasis added). There is nothing in these subsections that would
allow disqualification on the basis of the high school restriction in our state law. To t he
contrary, the regulations appear to narrowly restrict the applicability of state law provisions
to questions relating to whether the benefit applicant has turned down a “suitable position”
without “good cause.” We thus conclude that DEED erred by relying on this one item in
the guidance, without reading it together with the D UA regulations as the guidance
requires.
Moreover, the interpretation urged by DEED is inconsistent with the language and
purpose of the CARES Act and is illogical. Eligibility for PUA benefits requires a showing
that the person is not eligible for regular unemployment-compensation benefits. If the very
thing that makes the person eligible for PUA benefits is treated as a disqualification, no
one would be eligible for PUA benefits.5

5 We note that DEED does not assert that all individuals who are ineligible for regular
unemployment compensation are ineligible for PUA benefits. Rather , DEED argues that
“[t]here is a legal distinction between individuals who are not eligible for regular

10
DEED’s interpretation also ignores the USDOL guidance related to students. That
guidance expressly states that full -time students may be eligible for PUA benefits, even
though their work was only part -time and was not a “primary source of income.” UIPL
16-20 Change 1, at I -7. The guidance further provides that there is not a minimum age
requirement for PUA eligibility. UIPL 16-20 Change 2, at I-3. This undermines DEED’s
contention that our state law disqualification of high school students from regular
unemployment-compensation benefits should be applied to determine PUA eligibility.
Another factor that weighs against DEED’s interpretation is the fact that the CARES
Act offers “coverage for individuals who are not eligible for regular [unemployment
compensation],” including “certain gig economy workers, c lergy and those working for
religious organizations who are not covered by regular [unemployment compensation], and
other workers who may not be cover ed by the regular [unemployment -compensation]
program under some state laws .” UIPL 16 -20, at 1-2 (emphasis added); see also UIPL
16-20 Change 1, at I-8 (“PUA is a benefit of last resort for anyone who does not qualify
for other [unemployment -compensation] programs and who would be able and available
to work but for one or more of the COVID-19 related reasons listed in section 2102 of the
CARES Act.” (emphasis added)). Our state unemployment law bars “gig economy
workers” from eligibility for regular unemployment benefits because they are classified as

unemployment insurance benefits due to reasons that prevent them from establishing an
unemployment benefit account, and those who are ineligible due to application of state law
disqualification/ineligibility provisions.” Here again, however, we can discern no
language in the CARES Act or the USDOL guidance to support suc h a distinction and it
ignores section 625.11 of the DUA regulations that limits the applicability of state law
provisions.

11
independent contractors pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 15(a)(1) (2020), but the
guidance makes clear that they are not categorically disqualified from eligibility for PUA
benefits. See UIPL 16-20 Attachment 1, at I-6; UIPL 16-20 Change 1, at I-8.
DEED’s final argument in support of its interpretation of the CARES Act is that, if
high school students are deemed eligible to obtain PUA benefits , it will throw open the
doors of eligibility so wide that even incarcerated individuals and individuals not actu ally
unemployed may be eligible for benefits . This is not accurate. As we have explained,
applicants for PUA benefits must demonstrate, among other things, that they are “otherwise
. . . available for work.” CARES Act § 2102(a)(3)(A). Incarcerated individuals cannot be
eligible for PUA benefits because they are not “otherwise able to work and available for
work within the meaning of applicable State law.” Id. (a)(3)(A)(i).6 And individuals who
are not actually unemployed cannot be eligible for PUA benefits because the definition of
“covered individual” is limited to those who self -certify that they are “unemployed,
partially unemployed, or unable or unavailable to work because” of one of the enumerated
COVID-19-related reasons. Id. (a)(3)(A)(ii)(I).
We therefore reject DEED’s contention that its interpretation is reasonable and
discern no ambiguity in the applicable provisions of the CARES Act . Under the plain
language of the Act, we conclude that our state law barring high school students from

6 The USDOL guidance confirms this in answering a question about the eligibility of “an
incarcerated individual who is no longer participating in the work release program because
the jail closed this program due to C OVID-19.” UIPL 16 -20 Change 2, at I-4 (Question
9). The USDOL explains that “the incarcerated individual is not ‘otherwise able to work
and available for work within the meaning of applicable State law’ because of his or her
incarcerated status.” Id.

12
receiving regular unemployment -compensation benefits does not render high school
students categorically ineligible for PUA benefits.
DECISION
The ULJ erred by concluding that Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 2(3), applies to
render Minnesota high school students ineligible for PUA benefits under the CARES Act.
For this reason, and because DEED does not dispute that Muse has met the second
requirement for PUA eligibility, we reverse the decision of the ULJ.
Reversed.