Preview:

STATE OF MINNESOTA IN COURT OF APPEALS A11-954 John Stassen, Relator, vs. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. Filed March 5, 2012 Affirmed Ross, Judge Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 25570957-5 John Stassen, Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota (pro se relator) Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, Omaha, Nebraska (respondent employer) Lee B. Nelson, Amy R. Lawler, Department of Employment and Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department)

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Minge, Judge. SYLLABUS If an employer uses the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development's website to inform the department that its address has changed and the department later sends a notice of eligibility for unemployment benefits to the employer using a different address, the mailing does not trigger the twenty-day period for the

employer to appeal the eligibility determination under Minnesota Statutes section 268.101, subdivision 2(f). OPINION ROSS, Judge An accounts-payable collector, John Stassen, was so upset after his supervisor honored a customer's request to be transferred to a different collector because of Stassen's rudeness that he sent an email message to his supervisor declaring his "assurance that [he] will be happy to continue in [his] capacity as long as [several managers] would like so that there's no interruption or difficulty as [he] transition[s] out of LMTL's employ," adding, "If they would be comfortable with a decision . . . to sever immediately, so be it." Stassen's employer accepted the email as his resignation. He now challenges an unemployment law judge's (ULJ) decision that he is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he quit his employment. He argues specifically that the ULJ lacked jurisdiction to hear the case, that his employer actually discharged him, and that he did not receive a fair evidentiary hearing. We hold that the ULJ had jurisdiction to hear the case because the statutory twenty-day appeal period did not begin to run when the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) mailed its original determination that Stassen was eligible for unemployment benefits to the employer's wrong address. The evidence also supports the ULJ's finding that Stassen quit his employment but does not support his contention that he received an unfair hearing. We therefore affirm.

2

FACTS John Stassen worked as a part-time collector for Lone Mountain Truck Leasing and had been the subject of multiple complaints for disrespectful and aggressive behavior toward customers. In May 2010 Stassen's supervisor granted a customer's request to be transferred to a different collector. Stassen responded with an email complaining that the supervisor had handled the customer complaint poorly. Stassen concluded the email with the statements that he now contends Lone Mountain misinterpreted as announcing his resignation: Since Wayne has been more than fair with me for the 6 years or so that I've been in his employ, pls [sic] accept this e-mail as my assurance that I will be happy to continue in my capacity as long as he, Joe, and Andy would like so that there's no interruption or difficulty as I transition out of LMTL's employ. If they would be comfortable with a decision is [sic] to sever immediately, so be it. While I have diligently and effectively met my responsibilities, including strict compliance with new company policies, for the entire time I've worked for Wayne's firms, there have been several matters in recent weeks between you and me that make continuing on extremely unpleasant. Here's wishing Wayne, Joe, and Andy well -- it has been a real trip !! When Lone Mountain's human resources director received a copy of the email, she telephoned Stassen and told him that Lone Mountain had accepted his resignation. Stassen told her that the email was not a resignation. The next day, Lone Mountain sent Stassen a letter confirming that it had accepted his resignation. Stassen sent two emails 3

denying that his original email was his resignation. He retained an attorney, who sent a letter to Lone Mountain also denying that Stassen had resigned. Lone Mountain nevertheless continued to treat the email as a resignation letter and to refuse to allow Stassen to rescind. Stassen and Lone Mountain eventually entered into a settlement agreement under which Lone Mountain paid Stassen $10,155 as severance pay with an additional $10,155 for nonwage injuries. Stassen applied to DEED for unemployment benefits. On July 13, 2010, a department adjudicator determined that Stassen was eligible for benefits and attempted to mail a copy of that determination to Lone Mountain. It did so by sending it to Lone Mountain's address in the department's electronic database. On January 6, 2011, Lone Mountain filed an agency appeal with DEED, representing that it had only recently become aware of the determination because it had been mailed to the company's former address rather than its current address. An

unemployment law judge (ULJ) dismissed Lone Mountain's appeal as untimely because it was not filed within twenty calendar days from the date of mailing as required by Minnesota Statutes section 268.101, subdivision 2(f) (2010). Lone Mountain requested reconsideration. The ULJ reversed his earlier decision, finding that DEED had not sent the determination to Lone Mountain's current mailing address due to departmental error, and he reasoned that the appeal period had therefore never begun. A second ULJ then conducted a de novo hearing, finding that Stassen quit his employment and was therefore ineligible to receive unemployment benefits. Stassen filed a request for reconsideration and asked that a different ULJ handle it. A third ULJ 4

considered Stassen's reconsideration request and affirmed the second ULJ's decision. That final decision included a finding that Stassen had been overpaid $10,179 in unemployment benefits. Stassen appeals by certiorari. ISSUES I. Was the second ULJ barred from considering Lone Mountain's appeal because it was untimely? Did the ULJ err by determining that Stassen quit his employment with Lone Mountain? Did Stassen receive a fair hearing? ANALYSIS I Stassen first argues that the second ULJ exceeded her jurisdiction when she decided the question of resignation on the merits because, he maintains, Lone Mountain's appeal from the original determination of Stassen's eligibility to receive benefits was untimely. When reviewing a ULJ's decision, we may affirm the decision, remand for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision if the substantial rights of the relator have been prejudiced. Minn. Stat.

Download A11-954, John Stassen, Relator, vs. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, Respondent

Minnesota Law