Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A07-0945

Alaa I. Abdi, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Filed May 27, 2008 Reversed Schellhas, Judge Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 16876 06 Mark G. Stephenson, Stephenson & Sutcliffe, P.A., 1635 Greenview Drive SW, Rochester, MN 55901 (for relator) Lee B. Nelson, Katrina I. Gulstad, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, E200 First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for respondent) Considered and decided by Schellhas, Presiding Judge; Klaphake, Judge; and Halbrooks, Judge. SYLLABUS An applicant for extended trade readjustment allowances (TRA) benefits need not be engaged in full-time remedial training in order to be eligible for extended TRA benefits.

OPINION SCHELLHAS, Judge By writ of certiorari, relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that he was not eligible for extended TRA benefits because he was not enrolled in full-time remedial training. Because we hold that the United States Trade Act of 1974 and its regulations do not require participation in full-time remedial training in order to receive extended TRA benefits, we reverse. FACTS Relator Alaa I. Abdi was born in Somalia, moved to Yemen in 1986, and moved to Minnesota in 2000. In Minnesota, he worked for IBM and then Celestica until it ceased doing business in 2002. Relator then applied for unemployment benefits with respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). In January 2003, Celestica was certified under the Trade Act of 1974, making relator eligible for trade adjustment assistance (TAA). In August 2003, relator filed an application for TAA and TRA. He was tested at Rochester Community and Technical College, and it was determined that remedial courses in English and math were necessary prerequisites for relator's occupational training. In his application for TAA and TRA, relator stated that he was taking general equivalency degree (GED) courses and needed remedial training in English and math. In September 2003, DEED approved relator's TAA training plan, and in October 2003, relator and DEED signed a Trade Act Training Contract. DEED also approved relator's

2

application for TRA benefits and paid him basic TRA benefits for the period of March 19, 2004, through June 18, 2005. In 2005, relator spoke with his TAA counselor about extending his benefits beyond June 2005 because he needed more time to complete his coursework at the community college. Relator's TAA counselor helped relator submit an amendment to his plan to allow for a program of remedial education because relator had to take 26 credits of remedial courses in English and math in order to graduate. On May 5, 2005, the TAA coordinator approved a 25-week extension of relator's TRA benefits, apparently under the belief that relator had been in a "remedial program" for the first 25 weeks of his training. Relator's TAA counselor's notes reflect that in May 2005 he "[c]alled TRA to check on [e]xtension for Remedial training." He further noted that "[relator] will be deemed as having received [r]emedial TRA for first two semesters and will be eligible for TRA through 12/05." DEED paid relator remedial TRA benefits from June 25, 2005, through December 10, 2005, the end of his period of benefits extension. None of relator's training at the community college consisted of full-time remedial training in English or math. In

November 2006, DEED issued a TRA overpayment determination, finding that the remedial TRA was incorrectly authorized for the period of June 25, 2005, through December 10, 2005, and concluding that relator had been overpaid in the amount of $7,400. The TRA overpayment determination includes the following finding of fact: You collected Remedial TRA benefits when you were not eligible to receive these benefits. For a period of time you were scheduled for full-time TAA approved training[. At] 3

this time remedial and occupational training were scheduled concurrently. The combination of the remedial and occupational training brought you to full-time status, but the remedial itself was not full-time. Remedial TRA was incorrectly authorized at $296 per week for 25 weeks from week ending 6/25/05-12/10/05 for a total of $7,400.00. Relator appealed DEED's determination of overpayment. The ULJ affirmed the determination of overpayment and upon reconsideration the ULJ's decision was affirmed. ISSUE Did the ULJ err in deciding that relator was not eligible for extended TRA benefits because he was not enrolled in a full-time remedial program? ANALYSIS The Trade Act of 1974 (Act) provides that "[a] determination by a cooperating State agency with respect to entitlement to program benefits under an agreement is subject to review in the same manner and to the same extent as determinations under the applicable State law and only in that manner and to that extent." 19 U.S.C.

Download A07-945, Alaa I. Abdi, Relator, vs. Department of Employment and Economic Develo

Minnesota Law