Jordan L. Oslund, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A24-1583

Jordan L. Oslund,
Relator,

vs.

The Paint Genie, Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed June 23, 2025
Affirmed
Bratvold, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 50509800-3

Jordan L. Oslund, Hugo, Minnesota (pro se relator)

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

The Paint Genie, Inc., Hopkins, Minnesota (respondent employer)

Considered and decided by Bratvold, Presiding Judge; Ross, Judge; and Smith,
Tracy M., Judge.
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
BRATVOLD, Judge
Relator challenges the denial of his application for unemployment benefits, arguing
that the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) erred by determining that his administrative
2
appeal was untimely. We conclude that relator’s administrative appeal was untimely and
therefore affirm.
FACTS
Respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED)
determined that relator Jordan L. Oslund was ineligible for unemployment benefits, and
Oslund filed an administrative appeal. The ULJ dismissed his appeal as untimely, and in
response to Oslund’s motion for reconsideration, a second ULJ affirmed the dismissal.
The following summarizes the ULJ’s factual findings along with portions of the
record helpful to understand the issue on appeal.1
Oslund applied for unemployment benefits on March 25, 2024, and listed his
address in the application. 2 On April 29, 2024, DEED mailed a determination of
ineligibility to Oslund at the address listed in his application. The determination stated that
it would “become final unless an appeal [was] filed by Monday, May 20, 2024.” Oslund
filed an appeal on June 20, 2024. Also on June 20, Oslund updated his address in his
unemployment account. The ULJ found that, before June 20, Oslund “did not report” that
he had moved. The ULJ also found that, “[b]etween April 29, 2024 and May 20, 2024, the

1 DEED’s addendum includes documents not in the record that DEED transmitted when
requested by the Clerk of the Appellate Courts. DEED claims that these documents were
inadvertently omitted. We need not consider these documents because they are not
necessary to decide the issue on appeal.

2 The ULJ found that, when an individual applies for unemployment benefits, they receive
an unemployment handbook, which instructs them to “[k]eep the address on [their] account
up to date for at least four years after [their] last request for a benefit payment.”
3
Department did not receive anything from Oslund which could reasonably be construed as
disagreeing with” the benefits determination.
The ULJ concluded that “Oslund did not make a timely appeal” and issued an order
on June 21, 2024, dismissing the appeal “as untimely.” The ULJ’s order stated that the
“appeal was not filed within the time period required by law” and that, therefore, the ULJ
“has no legal authority to hear and consider the appeal.”
Oslund filed a request for reconsideration, stating that he “did not receive” the
ineligibility determination “until after May 20th, 2024, as by then [he] had been evicted
from [his] townhouse.” A second ULJ determined that “the decision of Friday, June 2 1,
2024 is factually and legally correct” and affirmed the order dismissing Oslund’s appeal.
Oslund petitioned this court for a writ of certiorari.
DECISION
“The Minnesota Court of Appeals must, by writ of certiorari to the department,
review the [ULJ’s] decision on reconsideration,” provided that a certiorari petition is timely
filed and served. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(a) (2024). This court “may affirm the
decision of the [ULJ] or remand the case for further proceedings; or it may reverse or
modify the decision if the substantial rights of the petitioner may have been prejudiced”
because the decision is, among other things, affected by legal error or “unsupported by
substantial evidence.” Id., subd. 7(d) (2024).
Oslund is self-represented and does not dispute the factual findings on appeal. He
argues that we should “reconsider” the ULJ’s decision and “allow [him] to have a trial.”
He states that he “did not receive” DEED’s determination of ineligibility. He also explains
4
that his “lease terminated and [he] had to be out by April 30th one day after” DEED mailed
the determination. He adds that he “did not have a new address until June 20th when [he]
promptly changed [his] address and filed for an appeal.” DEED responds that the “ULJ
correctly applied the law in dismissing” this appeal “as untimely” and that, therefore, we
should affirm.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the ULJ erred in dismissing the appeal as
untimely.3 Christgau v. Fine, 27 N.W.2d 193, 195, 199 (Minn. 1947); see also In re
Murack, 957 N.W.2d 124, 127 (Minn. App. 2021) (“The only issue for our determination
on this appeal is whether the ULJ erred by dismissing Murack’s administrative appeal as
untimely without considering the impact of the executive order.”). Time limits for
administrative appeals are “jurisdictional and must be strictly construed.” Johnson v.
Metro. Med. Ctr., 395 N.W.2d 380, 382 (Minn. App. 1986). “An agency decision of
whether to dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law, which [appellate courts]
review de novo.” Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25, 29
(Minn. App. 2012).
An initial determination of eligibility or ineligibility for unemployment insurance
benefits “is final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant” or employer “within 20 calendar

3 Oslund urges us to review the merits of his eligibility, arguing that the circumstances of
his unemployment support his claim for benefits. He argues that, after 15 years, he was
“demoted” to a position in which he worked with another employee who was
“unreasonable” and “always caused problems.” He argues that his employer “pushed [him]
out” when he voiced concerns about his employment. The ULJ did not decide the merits
of Oslund’s eligibility for benefits. As a result, the issue is not before this court, and we do
not consider it.
5
days after sending.” Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f) (2022).4 The statute specifies that the
20-day period begins after sending, meaning that the applicant must file an appeal “within
20 days of the date that” the determination of eligibility “is mailed.” Murack, 957 N.W.2d
at 127 (emphasis added).
Oslund emphasizes his failure to receive actual notice of the determination of
ineligibility. Caselaw does not support Oslund’s argument. When applying a previous
version of the statute setting the deadline for appeals of unemployment-benefits decisions,
this court noted that the “statute does not require actual notice for the appeal period to run.”
Johnson, 395 N.W.2d at 381-82 (applying Minn. Stat. § 268.10, subd. 5 (1984)). 5 In a
nonprecedential but persuasive opinion, 6 this court made the same observation about an
administrative appeal deadline that is identical to the one that applied to Oslund. Her v.
FGT Cabinetry LLC, No. A20-1024, 2021 WL 1247956, at *1 (Minn. App. Apr. 5, 2021)
(“The statute does not require actual notice for the appeal period to run.” (quotation

4 The legislature amended Minn. Stat. § 268.101 in 2023. 2023 Minn. Laws ch. 33, § 15,
at 309. Under the new version of the statute, applicants have 45 days to file an appeal
instead of 20 days. Id. This 2023 statute is “effective for determinations issued on or after
May 5, 2024.” Id. Because Oslund’s determination of ineligibility was issued on April 29,
2024, the 2022 version of Minn. Stat. § 268.101 applied and Oslund had 20 days to file an
appeal.

5 Minnesota Statutes section 268.10, subdivision 5, provided that a party could appeal an
eligibility determination “[w]ithin 30 days after mailing or personal delivery of the notice
of a referee’s decision to the claimant or employer at the last known address.”

6 Nonprecedential opinions “may be cited as persuasive authority.” Minn. R. Civ. App. P.
136.01(c).
6
omitted)).7 Because actual notice of an ineligibility determination is not required to trigger
the appeal period, Oslund’s alleged failure to receive actual notice does not affect our
analysis.
DEED contends that the 20-day appeal deadline has no exceptions. We agree based
on caselaw discussing different versions of this administrative appeal period. In Cole v.
Holiday Inns, Inc., this court noted that “[t]here is no provision for extension or exceptions”
to the appeal period. 347 N.W.2d 72, 73 (Minn. App. 1984) (stating that a determination
of ineligibility is “final unless an appeal therefrom is filed by a claimant or employer within
15 days after the mailing of the notice of the determination to his last known address or
personal delivery of the notice” and applying Minn. Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(3) (1982)). We
applied the same reasoning to the 2020 version of the administrative appeal deadline in
Murack. 957 N.W.2d at 127 (concluding that the deadline for filing an appeal of a denial
of unemployment benefits “is absolute” and that “when an appeal is not timely filed, it
must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction” and applying Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(f)
(2020)).
Oslund urges us to consider that he did not receive the determination of ineligibility
because he was evicted from the address he provided in his benefits application. We
understand that Oslund is arguing that he had good cause for his failure to file his
administrative appeal within the 20-day deadline. This argument has been previously

7 Her considered Minn. Stat. § 269.202, subd. 2(f) (2020). The 2020 version of
section 268.101, subdivision 2(f), cited in Her and the 2022 version applied here are
identical.
7
rejected for the same reasons that other exceptions to the administrative appeal deadline
have been rejected. In Semanko v. Department of Employment Services, the Minnesota
Supreme Court rejected Semanko’s claim that he had good cause for failing to file his
appeal within the statutory deadline, holding that the statutory deadline was “absolute and
unambiguous.” 244 N.W.2d 663, 665-66 (Minn. 1976).
8
In summary, relevant statutes and caselaw establish that (1) any appeal of a
determination of unemployment-benefits ineligibility must be filed within 20 days of the
mailing of the determination, (2) the 20-day appeal period starts the day the determination
is mailed regardless of actual receipt of the determination, and (3) there are no exceptions
or extensions to the 20-day appeal deadline.
The 20-day period for Oslund’s administrative appeal started on April 29, 2024,
when DEED mailed the determination of ineligibility to Oslund at the address he provided
in his application. The determination of ineligibility stated that it would “become final
unless an appeal [was] filed by Monday, May 20, 2024.” Oslund filed an appeal on June 20,
2024, 31 days after the appeal period ended. Thus, Oslund’s appeal was untimely.
We acknowledge Oslund’s frustration and the impact that the denial of
unemployment benefits has on Oslund and his family. Oslund understandably claims that
he is entitled to benefits after many years of employment. While we are sympathetic to
Oslund’s situation, the “function of the court of appeals is limited to identifying errors and

8 Semanko applied Minn. Stat. § 268.10, subd. 2(4), which required that an applicant or
employer must appeal “within seven days after” a notice of ineligibility “was mailed to his
last known address” or the “determination shall be final.”
8
then correcting them,” and we discern no error here. Sefkow v. Sefkow, 427 N.W.2d 203,
210 (Minn. 1988).
Because the ULJ correctly applied the law when determining that Oslund’s June 20,
2024 appeal was untimely, we affirm the order dismissing Oslund’s appeal.
Affirmed.