Charles Williams, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1030

Charles Williams,
Relator,

vs.

Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed April 18, 2022
Affirmed
Jesson, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development

Charles Williams, Apple Valley, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Schmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc., Lakeville, 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 Bryan, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and
Wheelock, Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
JESSON, Judge
Relator Charles Williams’s doctor reporte d that Williams was temporarily unable
to do any type of work due to his knee probl ems. Williams challenges the determination
2
of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was ineligible for benefits during the time
he was unable to work, arguing that the UL J erred by finding that he was unavailable for
and did not actively seek suitable employment. We affirm.
FACTS
Williams worked as a bus driver for Sc hmitty & Sons School Buses, Inc. The
company laid Williams off b ecause of work shortages dur ing the COVID-19 pandemic.
Williams applied for and began receiving unemployment benefits in April 2020. But due
to arthritis in Williams’s knee, Williams’s doctor stated that Williams was “totally unable
to perform any type of work” from October 2, 2020 to January 31, 2021.
At an evidentiary hearing on Williams’s appeal from an initial determination of
ineligibility, Williams testified that he agreed with his doctor’s assessment that he could
not work. He stated that, while medically re stricted from work, he did not look for other
types of employment b ecause of his doctor’s directions. He also explained his concern
about the pandemic given that he was a 67-ye ar-old man with hypertension caring for his
girlfriend while she underwent cancer treatments. Williams submitted no evidence at the
hearing suggesting that he could work.
In Williams’s weekly requests for unemploym ent benefits, he stat ed that he could
not work due to his knee issues. He stated that he hoped to return to work at Schmitty &
Sons when his knee healed, that he might look for work-from-home employment, and that
he planned to search on the internet for a jo b. But he did not list any steps taken to look
for other employment.
3
The ULJ found that Williams was (1) un available for suitable employment from
October 1, 2020 to January 31, 2021 because of his medical restriction and (2) not actively
seeking suitable employment during that time. The ULJ therefore determined that he was
ineligible for unemployment benefits for that period, resulting in an overpayment.
Williams requested reconsideration, and the ULJ affirmed the decision. Williams appeals
by a writ of certiorari.
DECISION
To be eligible for unemployment benef its, a person must be “available for” and
“actively seeking suitable employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(4), (5) (2020). A
person is “available for suitable employment” if the person “is ready, willing, and able to
accept suitable employment.” Id., subd. 15(a) (2020). And a person is “actively seeking
suitable employment” if the person makes “reasonable, diligent efforts [that] an individual
in similar circumstances would make if genuinely interested in obtaining suitable
employment.” Id., subd. 16(a) (2020). “Suitable em ployment” is “employment in the
applicant’s labor market area that is reasonabl y related to the applicant’s qualifications.”
Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23a(a) (2020).
Whether an applicant is available for and actively seeking suitable employment is a
question of fact. See Semanko v. Dep’t of Emp. Serv., 244 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Minn. 1976)
(stating that “the question of availability for work must be determined anew on the facts of
each case”). We review a ULJ’s findings of fact in the light most favorable to the ULJ’s
decision and “will not disturb the ULJ’s factua l findings when the ev idence substantially
sustains them.” Peterson v. Nw. Airlines, Inc. , 753 N.W.2d 771, 774 (Minn. App. 2008)
4
(citations omitted), rev. denied (Minn. Oct. 1, 2008). Ultimately, we may reverse or modify
a ULJ’s decision if it reflects an error of law and prejudices an applicant’s rights. Minn.
Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(4) (2020).
Here, the record shows that Williams wa s medically restricted from doing any type
of work from October 2, 2020 to January 31, 2021. Williams agreed with that restriction.
The record therefore substantially supports the ULJ’s finding that Williams was not
available for suitable employment. Minn. St at. § 268.085, subd. 15 (2020). The record
further shows that Williams did not seek other employment during the time in question. It
therefore also substantially supports the ULJ’s finding that Williams did not actively seek
suitable employment. Peterson, 753 N.W.2d at 774. We di scern no error in the ULJ’s
determination that Williams was not eligible for unemployment benefits.
Still, Williams makes three arguments to pers uade us otherwise. He first argues that
he provided respondent Mi nnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development (DEED) with the information it requested—namely, information regarding
his medical condition—and that he is ther efore entitled to benef its. But providing
requested information does not render Williams eligible, especially where the information
provided shows that Williams was not available for suitable employment and did not seek
employment.
Williams next appears to assert that he remained employed at Schmitty & Sons
during the time in question and that he was therefore available for suitable employment
and did not need to look for work. But the record shows, contrary to Williams’s argument,
5
that he was laid off, was on an involuntary le ave of absence, and that he contemplated
seeking other work.
Finally, Williams argues that he declin ed to look for work based on pandemic
emergency orders recommending that at-risk persons stay home. See Emerg. Exec. Order
No. 20-99, Implementing a Four Week Dial back on Certain Activities to Slow the Spread
of COVID-19 , at 4 (Nov. 18, 2020) (d ial-back executive order); Emerg. Exec. Order
No. 20-55, Protecting the Rights and Health of At-Risk Populations during the COVID-19
Peacetime Emergency, at 3 (May 13, 2020) (the at-risk-populations executive order). The
dial-back executive order advised at-risk pers ons to stay home and follow the provisions
of the at-risk-populations executive order. The at-risk populations executive order defined
at-risk persons as including people 65 year s old and older and those with underlying
medical conditions and advised at-risk persons to stay home except to engage in necessary
activities and work, to the extent that working from home was not possible. Additionally,
another executive order closed many businesses at which W illiams might have otherwise
found work. Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-04, Providing for Temporary Closure of Bars,
Restaurants, and Other Places of Public Accommodation, at 2 (Mar. 16, 2020).
Although the recommendations in these executive orders may have restricted the
jobs safely available to Williams, they did not wholly foreclose work. Nor did they
eliminate the requirement that Williams activel y seek work in order to be eligible for
benefits. And, as DEED poi nts out, still another executiv e order clarified that the
requirement that an applicant look for “suitable employment” did not require applicants to
pursue jobs that would put their health and safety at risk. Emerg. Exec. Order No. 20-05,
6
Providing Immediate Relief to Employers and Unemployed Workers During the COVID-19
Peacetime Emergency , at 2 (Mar. 16, 2020). In sum, nothing in the executive orders
relieved Williams of his obligation to seek “su itable employment,” that is, some type of
work within existing statutory parameters, see Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 23a(a), that
also would not risk his health and safety. Williams’s reliance on pandemic executive orders
is unavailing.
Affirmed.