Tyler Toenjes, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A21-1045

Tyler Toenjes,
Relator,

vs.

SpartanNash Associates, LLC,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed May 16, 2022
Affirmed
Smith, Tracy M., Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 45728921-3

Tyler Toenjes, Sauk Rapids, Minnesota (self-represented relator)

David M. Wilk, Larson King, LLP, St. Paul, Minnesota (for 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 Smith, Tracy M., Presiding Judge; Connolly, Judge; and
Kirk, Judge.


 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of A ppeals, serving by appoi ntment pursuant to
Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
SMITH, TRACY M., Judge
Relator Tyler Toenjes challe nges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ)
that he was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his job and does not meet
a statutory exception to ineligibility based on a quit. Because none of the statutory
exceptions to ineligibility based on a quit apply, we affirm.
FACTS
Toenjes started working as an order select or for respondent SpartanNash Associates,
LLC, a grocery-distribution company, on December 7, 2020. Toenjes worked his last day
with SpartanNash on January 24, 2021. He then stopped coming to work and missed three
shifts. Toenjes told SpartanNash’s HR partne r that the job did not fit his schedule and
daycare needs and that he was quitting. Toenjes did not request any accommodation from
SpartanNash before quitting.
Toenjes then requested unemployment bene fits, claiming that he quit because the
job was not working out, he was not making enough money, the job was not a good fit, and
his children’s daycare was not working out . Respondent Minnesota Department of
Employment and Economic Development (DEE D) administratively determined that he
was not eligible for benefits because he di d not request time off or other accommodation
from SpartanNash after losing childcare. Toen jes appealed. Follow ing an evidentiary
hearing, the ULJ determined that Toenjes was ineligible for benefits.
Toenjes requested reconsideration of th e ULJ’s decision. Th e ULJ affirmed the
previous decision.
3
Toenjes appeals by writ of certiorari.
DECISION
An applicant who quit employment is ine ligible for unemployment benefits unless
a statutory exception applies. Minn. Stat . § 268.095, subd. 1 (2020). Here, the ULJ
determined that Toenjes did not meet an exception.
We may reverse or modify a ULJ’s decisi on if the relator’s “substantial rights . . .
may have been prejudiced.” Minn. Stat. § 268. 105, subd. 7(d) (2020). We review factual
findings, which must be substantially supported by the record, in the light most favorable
to the ULJ’s decision; we review a ULJ’s determ ination that an applicant is ineligible for
unemployment benefits, based on factual findings, de novo. Fay v. Dep’t of Emp. & Econ.
Dev., 860 N.W.2d 385, 387 (Minn. App. 2015); see also Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty.
Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000) (applying the de novo standard to
determination of ineligibility based on a quit).
The ULJ made the following factual findings. Toenjes quit his job. He did so to stay
home with his preschool-aged children after they had difficulty in a daycare setting.
Toenjes and his wife decided that it would be better for his wife to continue working and
for Toenjes to stay home to take care of the children. Toenjes did not request an
accommodation from SpartanNash before quitting.
Toenjes argues that, despite quitting, he is eligible for unem ployment benefits
because of a statutory exception. He argues that he is eligible because his job with
SpartanNash was not working out, was not in his normal field of work, and had hours that
did not work for him. He additionally argues th at he feared SpartanNash was going to let
4
him go so it was in his best interests to leave. Though Toenjes does not cite to the applicable
law, there are three statutory exceptions under Minnesota law that his assertions potentially
invoke: the unsuitable-employment exception, the notification-of-a-layoff exception, and
the loss-of-childcare exception. We address each in turn. See Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd.
1(3), (6), (8).
Unsuitable-Employment Exception
Toenjes asserts that his job with Sparta nNash “just wasn’t working out” because it
wasn’t in his normal field of work, and the schedule was not working for him. An applicant
for unemployment benefits may be eligible for benefits, despite quitting, if “the applicant
quit the employment within 30 calendar days of beginning the employment and the
employment was unsuitable.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(3).
This exception does not apply here. First, the ULJ found that Toenjes quit because
of childcare issues, and that finding has s ubstantial support in the record. Second,
consistent with the record, the ULJ found, and Toenjes does not challenge, that Toenjes
began working for SpartanNash on December 7, 2020, and quit on Ja nuary 24, 2021; his
period of employment was therefore longer th an 30 calendar days. It is thus irrelevant
whether the SpartanNash job was suitable for Toenjes because he did not quit within the
first 30 days of employment, as is required to invoke the exception described in Minn. Stat.
§ 268.095, subd. 1(3).
Notification-of-a-Layoff Exception
Toenjes also asserts that he “felt like [S partanNash was] just going to let [him] go
anyway.” An applicant for unemployment benefits may be eligible for be nefits, despite
5
quitting, when “the employer notified the applicant that the applicant was going to be laid
off because of lack of work within 30 calendar days.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(6).
This exception does not apply here. First, the ULJ found that Toenjes quit because
of childcare issues. Second, the record contains no evidence that Toenjes was notified that
he would be laid off or that he had any warnings or negative performance reviews. Instead,
Toenjes testified that he felt like he would be laid off because his productivity was slower
than SpartanNash’s standards. That is not en ough to meet this ex ception, which requires
notification of a layoff. See id.
Loss-of-Childcare Exception
Finally, although Toenjes does not mention his childcare issues in his appellate
brief, we address the matter an yway because it was the focus of the ev identiary hearing
and the ULJ’s decision. An applicant for une mployment benefits ma y be eligible for
benefits, despite quitting, when “the applicant’s loss of child care for the applicant’s minor
child caused the applicant to quit the employment, provided the applicant made reasonable
effort to obtain other child care and reques ted time off or other accommodation from the
employer and no reasonable accommodation is available.” Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd.
1(8).
The ULJ found that Toenjes c hose to stay home to take care of his children because
they were not doing well in childcare. This finding is supported by the record. And, based
on this finding, the exception does not apply for two reasons. First, as the ULJ correctly
concluded, the statute requires the “loss of child care”; Toenjes did not lose childcare even
though it may have been important for his family that he quit to take care of the children at
6
home. Second, even if Toenjes had experienced a loss of childcare, the exception requires
the applicant to have requested “time off or other accommodation” from the employer. Id.
Nothing in the record show s, and Toenjes has not argued, that he requested an
accommodation from SpartanNash.
Because none of the statutory exceptions to ineligibility due to quitting apply, the
ULJ did not err by determining that Toenjes was ineligible for unemployment benefits.
Affirmed.