Melissa Ann Law, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0914

Melissa Ann Law,
Relator,

vs.

Pioneer Metal Finishing,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed April 11, 2022
Affirmed
Bryan, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 45316352-3

Melissa Ann Law, Robbinsdale, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Pioneer Metal Finishing, Minneapolis, 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 Jesson, Presiding Judge; Bryan, Judge; and Kirk, Judge.
*

* Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRYAN, Judge
Relator challenges the order of an une mployment-law judge (ULJ) dismissing
relator’s appeal of an initial determination of ineligibility after relator failed to appear. We
conclude that because relator failed to show good cause for failing to participate in the
evidentiary hearing, the ULJ did not abuse its discretion when it dismissed relator’s appeal.
FACTS
Respondent Pioneer Metal Finishing hired re lator Melissa Ann Law in June 2019.
In January 2021, Pioneer Metal Finishing discharged Law. Law applied for unemployment
benefits with respondent Minnesota De partment of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED). DEED issued a determination of ineligibility, concluding that Law
was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment
misconduct. Law appealed DEED’s determ ination and an evidentiary hearing was
scheduled for May 5, 2021, to address the merits of Law’s appeal. Law received notice of
this hearing and was informed that the “hearing will be held by telephone conference call.”
The notice instructed Law that if the listed phone number for her was incorrect, she was
responsible to log onto an online account and make the necessary changes.
At the hearing, the ULJ attempted to contact Law by calling the listed phone
number, but there was no answer. Unable to contact Law, the ULJ canceled the hearing
and dismissed Law’s appeal. Law requested reconsideration stating that she “forgot to
update [her] phone number,” and referencing a “financial issue in keeping [her] phone on.”
After reviewing the request for reconsideration, the ULJ concluded that Law had not shown
3
good cause for failing to participate and affirmed the dism issal. Law then initiated this
certiorari appeal.
DECISION
Law argues that the ULJ erred in determ ining that she had not shown good cause
for failing to participate in the evidentiary hearing. We conclude that because Law did not
show good cause for failing to participate, dismissal was not an abuse of discretion.
Under Minnesota law, an applicant may a ppeal a determination of ineligibility for
unemployment benefits and proceed to an evid entiary hearing with a ULJ. Minn. Stat.
§ 268.105, subd. 1(a) (2020). The applicant is required to personally participate in the
evidentiary hearing and neither appearance by a representative nor submission of a written
statement constitutes participation. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 1a(b) (2020). “If the party
who filed the request for reconsideration fa iled to participate in the hearing, the
unemployment law judge must issue an order setting aside [a] decision [dismissing the
appeal] and ordering an additional hearing if the party who failed to participate had good
cause for failing to do so.” Minn. Stat. § 26 8.105, subd. 2(d) (2020). “Good cause” is
defined as “a reason that wo uld have prevented a reasona ble person acting with due
diligence from participa ting in the hearing.” Id. We review the decision to deny an
additional evidentiary hearing to a relator who failed to participate for an abuse of
discretion. Petracek v. Univ. of Minn., 780 N.W.2d 927, 929 (Minn. App. 2010).
In her request for reconsideration, Law st ated that she forgot to update her phone
number. The ULJ found that this was not “good cause” for failing to personally participate
in the hearing because “[e]ven if true, Law could have called the Department on the day of
4
the hearing at the time of the he aring. She did not do so.” La w also asserts that her lack
of income resulted in her being unable “to keep that phone on.”
We conclude that it was not an abuse of discretion for the ULJ to determine that
Law’s explanation did not amount to good cause. The notice of hearing that was sent to
Law stated that the “hearing will be held by telephone conference call,” and if the listed
phone number was incorrect, to log onto an online account to make any changes. A
reasonable person acting with due diligence would have updated the phone number or made
some effort to call in to the hearing. Petracek, 780 N.W.2d at 930 (concluding that being
in jail, without an attempt to reschedule the hearing or further explanation of the
circumstances of the incarceration, did not constitute good cause for failing to participate);
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 345 (Minn. Ap p. 2006) (affirming denial of
reconsideration request when relator failed to participate in the evidentiary hearing because
of work, did not assert that she had been denied leave from work to attend the hearing, and
made no attempt to reschedule the hearing).1 Given this standard for showing good cause,
we can discern no abuse of discretion in the ULJ’s determination.
Affirmed.

1 We also observe that we have issued tw o nonprecedential opinions affirming denials of
reconsideration where the applicant failed to participate because of a problem with phone
service. See Appolon v. Mentor Management, Inc., No. A17-1951, 2018 WL 4855407, at
*2 (Minn. App. Oct. 8, 2018) (finding that a malfunctioning phone did not constitute “good
cause” for failing to participate); Mohamed v. Indus. Staffing , No. A09-944, 2010 WL
607664, at *2 (Minn. App. Feb. 23, 2010) (finding that a lack of cell phone service did not
constitute good cause). While these opinions are nonprecedential, we recognize their
persuasive value. See Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).