Thaddeus L. Hinnenkamp, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0102

Thaddeus L. Hinnenkamp,
Relator,

vs.

Minneapolis Special School District #001,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed August 2, 2021
Affirmed
Ross, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 41376938-3

Thaddeus L. Hinnenkamp, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Minneapolis, Special School District #001, Minneapolis, Minnesota (respondent
employer)

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

Considered and decided by Segal, Chief Judge; Ross, Judge; and Cochran, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
ROSS, Judge
Thaddeus Hinnenkamp ended his brief employment as a special-education assistant
with a Minneapolis school district and unsuccessfully sought unemployment benefits
2
through the department of employment and economic development. An
unemployment-law judge dismissed his appeal from that decision as untimely, rejecting
Hinnenkamp’s contention that the governor’s executive order suspended strict compliance
with the statutory appeal period. We hold that the unemployment-law judge erroneously
failed to recognize that the executive order gave authority to the department to consider
expanding the appeal period if the applicant demonstrated substantial compliance, but we
affirm the dismissal because Hinnenkamp failed to identify facts showing that he
substantially complied with the appeal period.
FACTS
Thaddeus Hinnenkamp left his position as a special- education assistant with a
Minneapolis school district in June 2020 after 21 months of employment. He then applied
for unemployment benefits with the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development. For statutory reasons not relevant to this appeal, the department found him
ineligible to receive benefits. The department sent Hinnenkamp its written determination
of ineligibility, explaining that the decision would become final unless he filed an appeal
by September 8, 2020 under the 20-day deadline established in Minnesota Statutes
section 268.101, subdivision 2(f) (2020). Hinnenkamp appealed the determination, but not
until after the deadline had passed. An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissed the
appeal as untimely.
Hinnenkamp asked the ULJ to reconsider. He asserted that the governor’s Executive
Order 20-05 suspended strict compliance with the appeal period. See Emergency Executive
No. Order 20-05, Providing Immediate Relief to Employers and Unemployed Workers
3
During the COVID-19 Peacetime Emergency (Mar. 16, 2020). He asserted alternatively
that he had been unable to comply with the appeal period because he was out of town when
the ineligibility decision arrived and remained so until after the appeal period ended. The
ULJ rejected the argument. Hinnenkamp appeals.
DECISION
Hinnenkamp challenges the dismissal of his claim for unemployment benefits,
maintaining that the ULJ should have reached the merits of his appeal despite its
untimeliness. Whether a department properly dismissed an appeal as untimely is a question
of law that we review de novo. Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d
25, 29 (Minn. App. 2012). An ineligibility determination is final unless it is appealed within
the statutorily permitted appeal period. Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f). Typically, the
department must dismiss an untimely appeal for lack of jurisdiction, Stassen, 814 N.W.2d
at 29, but after the governor issued Executive Order 20-05, this court held that a ULJ may
address the merits of an untimely appeal if a party can establish substantial compliance
with the appeal period . In re Murack, 957 N.W.2d 124, 131 (Minn. App. 2021). The
department may conclude that a party has substantially complied with the appeal period if
he “has a reasonable explanation for failing to strictly comply, has taken steps to comply
with the statute, [] has generally complied with the statute’s purpose, and there is
reasonable notice and a lack of prejudice to other parties.” Id. at 130. The ULJ, who decided
this case before our court issued the Murack decision, of course was unaware of the
parameters Murack would establish. But under those parameters, the ULJ improperly
4
rejected Hinnenkamp’s appeal as untimely without determining whether Hinnenkamp had
substantially complied with the appeal period.
Despite the ULJ’s understandable failure to consider the factors later clarified in
Murack, we hold that the ULJ came to the right conclusion by dismissing the appeal. We
do so because Hinnenkamp failed to identify for the ULJ (or for us) any facts from which
the ULJ could have determined that he substantially complied with the appeal period.
Hinnenkamp’s contention that his travel constituted a reasonable explanation for failing to
substantially comply with the appeal period fails. Without dispute, he received the
determination of ineligibility electronically . Despite having received the notice, he failed
to appeal the determination for about two months. He does not contend that his travel
prevented his notice, and he also did not contact the department after he returned. Neither
Hinnenkamp’s briefing nor our review of the record reveal any reason for the ULJ to have
concluded that Hinnenkamp substantially complied with the appeal period.
Affirmed.