Tiffany Crossfield, 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This opinion is nonprecedential except as provided by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
A25-1509

Tiffany Crossfield,
Relator,

vs.

AT&T Services Inc.,
Respondent,

Department of Employment and Economic Development,
Respondent.

Filed May 4, 2026
Affirmed
Frisch, Chief Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development
File No. 51549421-3

Tiffany Crossfield, Blaine, Minnesota (pro se relator)

AT&T Services, Inc., Dallas, Texas (respondent employer)

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

Considered and decided by Schmidt, Presiding Judge; Frisch , Chief Judge; and
Johnson, Judge.

2
NONPRECEDENTIAL OPINION
FRISCH, Chief Judge
Relator challenges the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that she was
ineligible for unemployment benefits for a period of time immediately following her last
day of employment. Because r elator received severance pay and was aware that such
payment would be made before she separated from her employment, we affirm the
determination of ineligibility.
FACTS1
Relator Tiffany Crossfield was employed by respondent AT&T Services Inc. from
December 7, 1998, through around December 1, 2022, and from around February 13 to
December 1, 2023. In May 2023, AT&T informed Crossfield that her position would be
relocated out of state, and she later learned that remote work was not approved. As of
August 2023, Crossfield was aware that she would be separating from her employment and
would receive some severance pay. As of her last day of employment, Crossfield had not
agreed to the terms and conditions of a general release and waiver associated with her
severance offer (release of claims).
Crossfield applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Minnesota
Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). She established an
unemployment benefits account and began receiving benefits on or about December 10,
2023.

1 The facts of this case are undisputed. The following facts derive from testimony and
exhibits presented to the ULJ at an evidentiary hearing.
3
On February 28, 2024, Crossfield accepted the release of claims and agreed to
receive severance payments pursuant to those terms. On April 5, 2024, Crossfield received
a lump-sum severance payment from AT&T. She also received an annual bonus for 2023.
In March 2025, DEED initially determined that Crossfield was ineligible for
unemployment benefits from December 3, 2023, through April 10, 2024, because she
received the severance payment. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3b (2024). As a result,
DEED determined that Crossfield had received an overpayment of unemployment benefits
that she was required to repay. Crossfield timely appealed DEED’s initial determination
to a ULJ.
In April 2025, the ULJ conducted an evidentiary hearing and received testimony
from Crossfield and her partner. The ULJ found that Crossfield received a total of $33,252
in severance payments, including $6,851 bonus pay and the $26,4012 lump-sum severance
payment. The ULJ divided the total severance payments to Crossfield by her weekly pay
and determined that Crossfield was ineligible for unemployment benefits for 22 weeks.3
See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subds. 3b(d)-(e), 3(c) (2024). The ULJ also found that

2 The basis for the ULJ’s finding is unclear. The check from AT&T reflects a payment of
$26,124. Crossfield does not challenge this determination on appeal, so we do not disturb
this finding. See, e.g., In re Civ. Commitment of Kropp, 895 N.W.2d 647, 653 (Minn. App.
2017) (“Minnesota appellate courts decline to reach an issue in the absence of adequate
briefing.”), rev. denied (Minn. June 20, 2017).

3 The $33,252 Crossfield received in severance pay was divided by her last level of regular
weekly pay, $1,543.88, resulting in 21 weeks of payment with a remainder of $830.52.
Because this remainder amount was higher than Crossfield’s weekly unemployment
benefit amount of $742, she was deemed ineligible for an additional week. See Minn. Stat.
§ 268.085, subd. 3b(e).
4
Crossfield was aware on her last day of employment that she would receive some severance
pay, and, therefore, the period of ineligibility for benefits applied immediately following
her last day. See Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3b(b). The ULJ concluded that Crossfield
was ineligible for benefits from December 3, 2023, through May 4, 2024. This
determination resulted in an overpayment of unemployment benefits to Crossfield in the
amount of $15,582 that she was required to repay. Crossfield requested reco nsideration,
and the ULJ affirmed the prior ruling.
This certiorari appeal follows.
DECISION
When reviewing an unemployment-benefits eligibility determination, we may
“affirm the decision of the [ULJ] or remand the case for further proceedings.” Minn. Stat.
§ 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2024). We may also reverse or modify the decision if relator’s
substantial rights “may have been prejudiced” because the decision is “(1) in violation of
constitutional provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the
department; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law;
(5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or
(6) arbitrary or capricious.” Id.
“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).
5
DEED pays unemployment benefits to applicants who meet statutory requirements.
Minn. Stat. § 268.069, subd. 1 (2024). “An applicant is not eligible to receive
unemployment benefits for any week the applicant is receiving, has received, or will
receive separation pay, severance pay, bonus pay, or any other payments paid by an
employer because of, upon, or after separation from employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085,
subd. 3b(a). The receipt of severance pay renders an applicant ineligible for “all the weeks
of payment.” Id., subd. 3b(d). If the payment is made in a lump sum, the number of “weeks
of payment” is determined by dividing the lump sum by the applicant’s last level of regular
weekly pay. Id., subd. 3(c)(2); see also id., subd. 3b(d). These payments “are applied to
the period immediately following the later of [1] the date of separation from employment
or [2] the date the applicant first becomes aware that the employer will be making a
payment.” Id., subd. 3b(b). “The date the payment is actually made or received, or that an
applicant must agree to a release of claims, does not affect the application of this
paragraph.” Id.
With these principles in mind, we turn to Crossfield’s certiorari appeal.
We understand Crossfield to argue that the ULJ erred by determining that she was
ineligible for benefits immediately following her last day of employment because she was
not entitled to severance pay until she signed the release of claims on February 28, 2024,
and she was eligible for benefits during the relevant time period because she did not receive
the lump-sum severance payment until April 5, 2024. Crossfield does not appear to dispute
that the payments she received from AT&T qualify as severance payments that could affect
6
her eligibility for benefits under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3b, 4 and instead challenges
the timing of the period of ineligibility based on such severance payments.
We agree with the ULJ’s determination of ineligibility. Pursuant to the plain
language of Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3b(b), severance payments are applied to the
period immediately following the later of “the date of separation from employment” and
“the date the applicant first becomes aware that the employer will be making a [severance]
payment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3b(b). Crossfield’s date of separation from
employment with AT&T was December 1, 2023. The ULJ found that Crossfield knew as
of the last day of her employment that she would receive severance pay, and this finding is
supported by the record. The ULJ then determined, consistent with the plain language of
the statute, that Crossfield’s period of ineligibility began immediately after her last day of
employment. And because the timing provisions of the statute are not affected by “[t]he
date the payment is actually made or received, or that an applicant must agree to a release
of claims,” id., it is of no consequence when Crossfield signed the release of claims or
received the lump-sum payment.
5

4 While Crossfield asserts that the payment she received was “a lump- sum settlement” or
“a negotiated settlement and recognition of service,” not continuing wage replacement for
the time frame of December 3, 2023, to April 5, 2024, this assertion appears related to
Crossfield’s underlying argument that the period of ineligibility should not apply
immediately after her last day of employment.

5 We are not unsympathetic to Crossfield’s contention that she should not be required to
repay the unemployment benefits she received prior to April 5, 2024 , because she did not
receive the lump- sum severance payment until this date and did not seek further
unemployment benefits when she continued to be unemployed for several months
thereafter. However, Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 3b(b), provides when severance
payments are applied to determine eligibility for unemployment benefits, and Crossfield
7
We recognize the unfortunate circumstances regarding Crossfield’s separation from
her long-time employment with AT&T. But we are nevertheless obligated to follow the
law. We therefore affirm the ULJ’s determination of ineligibility.
Affirmed.

does not identify any authority permitting a ULJ to disregard or otherwise circumvent this
unambiguous timing provision.