Patrick Hammer Fay, Relator v. Department of Employment and Economic Development
860 N.W.2d 385
| Minn. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Relator Patrick Fay applied for unemployment benefits and was required by DEED to attend a reemployment assistance services meeting; notice warned that failure to attend could delay or deny benefits.
- Fay missed the scheduled meeting, testified he had it on his calendar and simply forgot, lived ~500 feet from the meeting site, and attended a subsequent meeting.
- DEED found Fay ineligible for benefits for the week he missed the meeting under Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(7); Fay appealed and requested a rehearing, which a ULJ denied.
- The core legal question was whether Fay had “good cause” for missing the meeting as required by § 268.085(1)(7); “good cause” is not defined in that subdivision.
- The court considered whether to adopt an existing statutory definition of “good cause” from the unemployment chapter and whether Fay’s excuse (forgetting) met that standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fay had “good cause” under Minn. Stat. § 268.085(1)(7) for missing the meeting | Fay: He forgot the meeting due to competing priorities (and later raised personal hardships on appeal) | DEED: Forgetting is not good cause; claimant must show a reason that would prevent a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating | Held: No. Court defined “good cause” by borrowing § 268.105(2)(d): a reason that would have prevented a reasonable person acting with due diligence from participating, and found Fay’s forgetting insufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Stassen v. Lone Mountain Truck Leasing, LLC, 814 N.W.2d 25 (Minn. App. 2012) (standard of review for ULJ determinations)
- State v. Mauer, 741 N.W.2d 107 (Minn. 2007) (definition of statutory ambiguity)
- State v. Leathers, 799 N.W.2d 606 (Minn. 2011) (use of in pari materia in statutory interpretation)
- McNeice v. City of Minneapolis, 84 N.W.2d 232 (Minn. 1957) (applying one statute’s definition to another related provision)
- Petracek v. Univ. of Minn., 780 N.W.2d 927 (Minn. App. 2010) (interpretation of good cause under § 268.105; need to explain circumstances)
- Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 N.W.2d 340 (Minn. App. 2006) (missing a hearing for work is not good cause absent effort to reschedule or denial of time off)
- Plowman v. Copeland, Buhl & Co., 261 N.W.2d 581 (Minn. 1977) (appellate courts cannot consider facts outside the record on appeal)