Edwin A. Mathieu, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A22-0814

Edwin A. Mathieu,
Relator,

vs.

University of St. Thomas,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed February 21, 2023
Affirmed
Reilly, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 48501361-4

Edwin A. Mathieu, Minneapolis, Minnesota (pro se relator)

University of St. Thomas, St. Paul, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Keri Phillips, Lossom Adams, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic
Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent department)

Considered and decided by Cochran, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Reilly,
Judge.
2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
REILLY, Judge
Relator challenges the decisio n of an unemployment-law judge that he is ineligible
for unemployment benefits because he quit his employment without a good reason caused
by his employer. We affirm.
FACTS
Relator Edwin A. Mathieu worked as a full -time cook for respondent University of
St. Thomas (St. Thomas) from October 2021 to January 2022. In December 2021, Mathieu
met with his supervisors for a conversation Mathieu later described as non- disciplinary.
His supervisors informed Mathieu that a student made a sexual -harassment allegation
against him. Mathieu requested an investigation into the allegations. The supervisors did
not disclose the name of the student or any details about the incident but warned Mathieu
to be “careful [about] how [he] talk[ed] to people” and told him not to worry about the
situation. They told Mathieu that St. Thomas students are very religious and could have
taken “one little look at something totally opposite for what it means.” The supervisors
stated they did not want to escalate the situation by referring it to human resources.
During the second week of January 2022, one of Mathieu’s supervisors met with
Mathieu again for a non-disciplinary conversation. The supervisor informed Mathieu that
another student went to management and made a sexual -harassment allegation against
Mathieu, and the supervisor repeated his warning for Mathieu to be careful how he talked
to people. Mathieu again asked his supervisor to contact human resources to begin to
investigate the allegations that Mathieu believed were false. His supervisor agreed to speak
3
to human resources to request that they begin an investigation at Mathieu’s request. After
the supervisor’s conversation with Mathieu, the supervisor never followed up with Mathieu
about speaking to human resources or inform ed him of any impending investigation.
Mathieu never approached or contacted human resources directly with his concerns, rather
he assumed his supervisor did so on his behalf.
The next week , Mathieu learned his grandmother’s health was declining and
submitted a request to his supervisor to take a week off of work to visit her in Utah. His
supervisor allowed Mathieu to be absent from work beginning on January 23, 2022 and
expected Mathieu to return by January 31. Mathieu’s grandmother passed away and he
attended her funeral during his absence. On January 28, Mathieu emailed human resources
and informed them he was resigning, effective immediately. Mathieu’s email explained,
“[D]ue to unavoidable personal reasons my attention is required elsewhere.”
Mathieu applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Depart ment of
Employment and Economic Development (DEED). In March 2022, DEED determined
that Mathieu was ineligible for unemployment benefits and that Mathieu had received an
overpayment of benefits in the amount of $1,107. Mathieu administratively appealed the
determination of ineligibility. An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) conducted an
evidentiary hearing in April 2022. A human- resources representative testified for St.
Thomas and Mathieu testified on his own behalf.
Mathieu testified his reason for quitting and not returning to work was a
“combination” of (1) grieving the loss of his grandmother; and (2) feelings of discomfort
because the sexual -harassment alleg ations against him had not been investigated despite
4
his requests. Mathieu requested the ULJ subpoena both of his supervisors to corroborate
his testimony, explain how St. Thomas’ investigation process would work, and discover
whether the supervisors were violating university policies by not going to human resources.
The ULJ denied Mathieu’s subpoena requests because St. Thomas was not contesting the
content of Mathieu’s conversations with his supervisors and the ULJ did not “need to hear
them tell [ the U LJ] the same things.” The human- resources representative testified that
her department had no notice of any sexual-harassment allegations about Mathieu and that
all employees are encouraged to contact human resources if they have concerns about their
supervisors.
The ULJ issued an order concluding Mathieu was ineligible for unemployment
benefits. The ULJ concluded that Mathieu did not quit because of a good reason caused
by St. Thomas because an average, reasonable worker would not quit when faced with
sexual-harassment allegations given that there were no threats of legal action, no formal
discipline, and no jeopardized employment. The ULJ also determined that Mathieu did not
give St. Thomas a reasonable opportunity to correct the situation prior to quit ting.
In April 2022, Mathieu filed a request for the ULJ to reconsider the decision,
explaining it was impossible to speak with human resources in person due to his work
schedule and stating that he did email a different human -resources representative seeking
an investigation into the allegations before quitting. The ULJ issued an order affirming the
prior decision. Mathieu’s pro se appeal by writ of certiorari follows.
5
DECISION
I. The ULJ did not err in determining Mathieu is ineligible for unemployment
benefits because he d id not quit for a good reason caused by his employer.

Mathieu argues he is entitled to unemployment benefits because he quit for a good
reason caused by St. Thomas. In reviewing a ULJ’s eligibility decision, we may affirm the
decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse and modify the decision if the
substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)
(2022). This court reviews the ULJ’s factual findin gs in the light most favorable to the
decision. Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016). Those
findings are not disturbed “as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends
to sustain them.” Stagg v. Vintage Place, Inc., 796 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn. 2011).
An applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if they quit their employment
unless one of ten statutory exceptions applies. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2022). One
exception arises when an employee quits “because of a good reason caused by the
employer.” Id., subd. 1(1). To qualify, the “good reason” must be: (1) “directly related to
the employment and for which the employer is responsible”; (2) “adverse to the worker”;
and (3) one “that would compel an average, reasonable worker to quit and become
unemployed rather than remaining in the employment.” Id., subd. 3(a) (2022). An
employee must complain about the adverse conditions to the employer and give the
employer a reasonable opportunity to correc t the conditions before it qualifies as a good
reason caused by the employer for quitting. Id. , subd. 3(c) (2022). Whether an employee
6
had a good reason is a question of law reviewed de novo. Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty .
Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn. App. 2000).
Mathieu argues that he quit because of a good reason caused by his employer
because his supervisors failed to contact human resources and request an investigation into
the sexual-harassment allegations against Mathieu. Without an opportunity to clear his
name from the allegations he contends are false, Mathieu states he suffered adverse
psychological effects and damage to his reputation. The ULJ found that Mathieu did not
have a good reason to quit under the statute because being accused of sexual harassment
under similar circumstances would not compel an average, reasonable worker to quit. We
agree.
The ULJ’s findings in support of its ineligibility determination are supported by
substantial evidence. When he quit, Mathieu was not facing legal action based on his
alleged conduct and testified he did not know about any impending investigation or action
by law enforcement to “charg[e] [him] with anything.” And Mathieu was not in danger of
discharge based on the allegations. The human- resources representative testified that St.
Thomas had no record of any complaint or sexual -harassment allegation about Mathieu
and that no disciplinary action was taken against him. Mathieu’s supervisors spoke to him
in a non- disciplinary conversation and told him to keep an eye on his surroundings, be
more careful, and not to worry about the allegations. On these facts, we do not discern any
adverse condition that would compel a reasonable employee to quit.
Mathieu argues that his supervisors were responsible for contacting human
resources on his behalf and, by failing to do so, he was never relieved of his anxieties about
7
returning to work and compelling him to quit. Mathieu testified he never approached
human resources himself about investigating the allegations or his supervisors’ inaction. 1
While this court has held that an employer has a duty to investigate a complaint of sexual
harassment and take appropriate steps against offending personnel, we have not addressed
whether an affirmative duty to investigate is triggered solely by a request by an individual
accused of sexual harassment. See id. at 753 (holding if an employer fails to investigate a
complaint of sexual harassment and the employee quits because of the harassment , the
employee has a good reason caused by the employer for quitting). Even so, the source of
Mathieu’s fear and discomfort in returning to work rested on his knowledge that the
allegations had been made. “The standard of what constitutes good cause to quit is whether
the reason was compelling, real and not imaginary, substantial and not trifling, reasonable
and not whimsical or capricious.” Trego v. Hennepin C nty. Family Day Care Ass’n, 409
N.W.2d 23, 26 (Minn. App. 1987) . It applies “to the average man or woman, and not to
the supersensitive.” Nichols v. Reliant Eng’g & Mfg., Inc., 720 N.W.2d 590, 597 (Minn.
App. 2006). There is no evidence Mathieu was treated any differently by St. Thomas, his
supervisors, or by the students he served because of the allegations. Though allegations

1 Mathieu argued in his request for the ULJ to reconsider the decision that he did email a
different human-resources representative to request an investigation , and mistakenly told
the ULJ he never spoke to human resources because he was nervous during the hearing.
We review the denial of a request for an additional hearing for an abuse of discretion.
Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). The ULJ refused to
order another hearing based on Mathieu’s new evidence because the existence of the email
contradicts Mathieu’s clear testimony that he never contacted human resources himself but
wished that he did and was solely relying on his supervisor to reach out on his behalf. We
discern no abuse of discretion in the ULJ’s ruling.
8
themselves can be troubling, the record does not show that a reasonable person would find
the condition compelling or substantial enough to quit.
As a result, Mathieu did not quit for a good reason caused by his employer, and the
ULJ did not err in its determination that he is ineligible for unemployment benefits.
II. The ULJ did not abuse its discretion by denying Mathieu’s request to subpoena
his supervisors.

The ULJ has a “duty to assist” parties with the development of the record . White v.
Univ. of Minn. Physicians Corp., 875 N.W.2d 351, 357 (Minn. App. 2016). The ULJ “may
issue subpoenas to compel the attendance of wit nesses . . . upon a showing of necessity by
the requesting party.” Minn. R. 3310.2914, subp. 1 (2021) . But the ULJ may deny a
request for a subpoena “if the testimony or documents sought would be irrelevant,
immaterial, or unduly cumulative or repetitious.” Id. This court reviews a ULJ’s decision
whether to issue a subpoena for an abuse of discretion. Icenhower v. Total Auto., Inc., 845
N.W.2d 849, 853 (Minn. App. 2014), rev. denied (Minn. July 15, 2014).
Mathieu argues that the ULJ improperly denied his request to issue subpoenas for
the appearance and testimony of his supervisors because the human-resources
representative who appeared on behalf of St. Thomas had no knowledge or record of the
sexual-harassment allegations against Mathieu and was “clueless” as to what the hearing
was about. During the hearing, Mathieu requested his supervisors be called to:
(1) corroborate Mathieu’s testimony; (2) explain how the investigation process worked;
and (3) discover whether the supervisors were violating university policies by not
approaching human resources. The ULJ denied his subpoena requests because the ULJ
9
credited Mathieu’s account of his conversations with his supervisors and did not “need to
hear them tell [the ULJ] the same things .”
The ULJ did not abuse its discretion in denying Mathieu’s subpoena requests. The
supervisors’ testimony corroborating Mathieu’s account of their conversations would have
been cumulative because the district court credited Mathieu ’s descriptions. Further, even
if testimony about human resource’s investigation process was relevant, there is no
indication that the supervisors’ testimony would help in understanding a separate
department’s procedure. Mathieu had a chance to question the human- resources
representative about the process and declined. Last ly, t estimony from the supervisors
about their inaction and failure to contact human resources would not aid Mathieu in
determining whether university policy placed a duty upon them to act. Because the
testimony would be “irrelevant, immaterial, [and] unduly cumulative,” the ULJ did not
abuse its discretion in denying Mathieu’s subpoena requests. Minn. R. 3310.2914,
subp. 1.
Affirmed.