In the Matter of: Michael Hein.

This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-0934

In the Matter of:
Michael Hein.

Filed March 28, 2022
Reversed
Klaphake, Judge*

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 46493143-3

Stephanie M. Balmer, Falsani, Balmer, Peterson & Balmer, Duluth, Minnesota (for relator)

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

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Larkin, Judge; and Klaphake,
Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
KLAPHAKE, Judge
Relator Michael Hein challenges an u nemployment-law judge’s (ULJ)
determination that he was ineligible for p andemic unemployment assistance (PUA)
following a COVID-19-related furlough from his full-time job because he was eligible for
regular state unemployment benefits based on earnings from a part-time job. Relator

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

2
contends the ULJ erred by interpreting federal law to conclude he was eligible for state
unemployment benefits and thus ineligible for PUA. PUA is a provision of the Coronavirus
Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) which was signed into law on March
27, 2020; the portions of the CARE S Act relevant here are c odified in 15 U.S.C.A.
§§ 9021-9034 (West Supp. 2021).
We determine the ULJ’s decision was affected by an error of law because our de
novo interpretation of the CARES Act indicates that “not eligible” under the PUA
eligibility requirement means the applicant is unable to collect funds from federal or state
unemployment insurance programs. Because it is undisputed that relator was never able to
collect state unemployment benefits due to disqualifying income from part-time work, and
he was ineligible to receive federal unemployment benefits for his full-time job under the
federal Railroad Insurance Act, we reverse.
DECISION
This court can reverse or modify a ULJ’s decision if the appellant’s rights were
prejudiced because the decision was affected by an error of law. Minn. Stat. § 268.105,
subd. 7(d)(4) (2020). “If the relevant facts are not in dispute, we apply a de novo standard
of review to the ULJ’s interpretation of the unemployment statutes and to the ultimate
question whether an applicant is eligible to receive unemployment benefits.” Menyweather
v. Fedtech, Inc., 872 N.W.2d 543, 545 (Minn. App. 2015). We review de novo an agency’s
interpretation and application of federal law. In re Gillette Children’s Specialty Healthcare,
883 N.W.2d 778, 784 (Minn. 2016).
3
In interpreting a federal statute, appellate courts must “give effect to the will of
Congress.” Goodman v. Best Buy, Inc. , 777 N.W.2d 755, 758 (Minn. 2010) (quotation
omitted). “[I]t is necessary to ‘consider not only the bare meaning’” of the words or phrases
used therein, “but also [their] placement and purpose in the statutory scheme.”’ Id. (quoting
Bailey v. United States, 516 U.S. 137, 145 (1995)). The United States Department of Labor
published a letter, and six subsequent changes to th at letter, to help states implement and
apply the CARES Act. See U.S. Dep’t of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter
No. 16-20 (Apr. 5, 2020) (UIPL 16-20).
The single issue here is whether relator is eligible for PUA under the CARES Act.
Relator contends the ULJ “erred as a matter of law” by determining he is ineligible for
PUA. Respondent, the Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED),
argues the ULJ came to the “correct” legal conclusion in determining relator “is not eligible
for PUA because he is not ineligible for regular compensation under state law.”
PUA provides “any covered individual” with unemployment benefit assistance
while they are unemployed. 15 U.S.C.A. § 9021(b). PUA is available when the covered
individual is not entitled to any other funds received under a federal or state law in
unemployment compensation. Id.; 26 U.S.C.A. § 85(b) (West Supp. 2021). To be a
“covered individual,” an applicant must fulfill three requirements. Relevant here is the
requirement that the applicant “is not eligible for regular compensation or extended
benefits under State or Federal law or pandemic emergency unemployment compensation.”
4
15 U.S.C.A. § 9021(a)(3)(A)(i).1 As UIPL 16-20 explains, “[t]he CARES Act was designed
to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways,” one of
which is providing “temporary benefits” to “individuals who are not eligible for regular
[unemployment compensation],” including “those who otherwise do not qualify for regular
unemployment compensation” under state or Federal law. UIPL 16 -20, at 1-2. In other
words, PUA under the CARES Act is meant to provide temporary m onetary assistance to
individuals who lost employment because of COVID-19 and cannot receive regular
unemployment benefits under federal or state law. Based on this language, we find it
unambiguous that the meaning of “not eligible” under PUA means the applicant is unable
to receive benefits from state or federal unemployment insurance programs. This
understanding comports with the overall intent of Congress in promulgating the legislation.
See Goodman, 777 N.W.2d at 758 (stating we must “give effect to the will of Congress”
when interpreting a federal statute).2

1 Pandemic emergency unemployment compensation (PEUC) is available to individuals
who have received all regular unemployment benefits available to them for a particular
benefit year. Id., § 9025(a)(2)(A). As Hein did not receive any unemployment benefits
from the state during his benefit year, he is ineligible for PEUC, so PEUC is not relevant
to our analysis.

2 Respondent relies on the eligibility requirements listed in the Disaster Unemployment
Assistance Act (DUA) to determine relator is ineligible for P UA. The CARES Act does
indicate DUA “shall apply” to the CARES Act as if “‘COVID-19 public health emergency’
were substituted for the term ‘major disaster’” each place it appears in DUA, and
“‘pandemic’ were substituted for the term ‘disaster’” each place it appears in DUA. 15
U.S.C.A. § 9021(h). However, the UIPL guidance states, “[w]here the CARES Act and the
operating instructions are silent, states should refer to DUA regulations at 20 C.F.R. pt.
625 (2021). Where DUA regulations are silent, states should follow applicable state law
for administering the regular [unemployment compensation] program.” See U.S. Dep’t of
5
The evidence here is undisputed. Even though relator’s full-time job was not
covered by Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law, it was covered by the federal
Railroad Insurance Act, but relator was ineligible for Railroad Unemployment Insurance.
Relator’s part-time job at a restaurant in northern Minnesota is covered under Minnesota
Unemployment Insurance Law and relator established an unemployment benefits account
with DEED based on this part-time employment. However, because the benefits account
was based solely on relator’s wage credits for his part-time job, his weekly benefit amount
was only $111. 3 Relator, however, never received any benefits from his state
unemployment benefits account because each week he requested benefits, he reported
earnings higher than his allotted weekly benefit amount of $111. Stated simply, relator
never received any unemployment benefits from either federal or state unemployment
insurance programs.
Thus, based on our adopted definition of “not eligible” under PUA’s eligibility
requirements, relator is eligible for PUA benefits because he was unable to receive funds
under both Minnesota Unemployment Insurance Law, and the federal Railroad Insurance
Act.

Labor, Unemployment Insurance Program Letter No. 16-20, Change 1 (Apr. 27, 2020).
Because we do not find PUA unclear, we need not review DUA for guidance.

3 When relator discovered his state unemployment benefit account was based solely on his
part-time work, he appealed DEED’s determination and a ULJ affirmed relator could not
receive wage credits fr om his full-time job because it was noncovered under Minnesota
Unemployment Insurance Law. See Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 20 (2020).

6
DEED acknowledged during oral arguments that the ULJ’s application of the
CARES Act to relator’s situation created an unfair result given relator’s inability to collect
any unemployment funds, despite his loss of full- time employment. DEED also
acknowledges “[relator’s] situation is not uncommon,” stating:
As the PUA program was rolled out, many applicants who
worked full time in self-employment or other noncovered
employment, but had a part-time job in covered employment,
found themselves in a similar situation: they had a low weekly
benefit amount, based solely on wages from their part- time
employment, but did not qualify for a PUA account with a
higher benefit amount because of their eligibility for regular
unemployment benefits.
Congress, as DEED points out in its brief, recognized this unfair result, and tried to
mitigate the unfairness for self-employed workers when it promulgated the Mixed Earner
Unemployment Compensation (MEUC) program, which permitted an additional $100
payment to persons who received non- PUA unemployment benefits and reported at least
$5,000 in self-employment income in the most recent taxable year. See 15 U.S.C.
§ 9023(b)(1)(C) (2020). Congress’s promulgation of MEUC also supports our
determination that the unfair application of the CARES Act in relator’s case was not
intended by Congress because MEUC shows Congress did not intend for mixed earners to
be unable to receive benefits.
In sum, because relator was unable to receive benefits under either federal or state
unemployment programs, he is eligible for PUA benefits. Therefore, we reverse the ULJ’s

7
decision that relator is ineligible for PUA because the decision was affected by an error of
law. See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4).
Reversed.