Minnesota State Law Library
Shown here are the statements of the issues presented for review by the appellate courts in the briefs filed for this case. The entire brief set can be found at the State Law Library and other libraries around the state. See Minnesota Appellate Court Briefs Collection for more information.
CASE NAME: Eric Kangas, Respondent, vs. Industrial Welders and Machinists, Inc., Relator, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Read the opinion in this case at A11-1207
CITATION: 814 N.W.2d 97 (Minn. Ct. App. 2012)
Legal Issues in RELATOR'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
DID THE UNEMPLOYMENT LAW JUDGE ERROR IN CONSIDERING AND RULING ON AN APPEAL OF RESPONDENT KANGAS' INELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION BASED UPON MISCONDUCT GIVEN THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT APPEALED WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIMEFRAME? Answer: Yes. The time limit for appealing a determination of ineligibility for unemployment-compensation benefits is jurisdictional. Regardless of any mitigating circumstances, untimely appeals may not be heard. Apposite Authority: Kennedy v. Am.Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738 (Minn. Ct. App. 2006); King v. Univ. of Minn., 387 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn. App. 1986); Semanko v. Department of Employment Services, 309 Minn. 425 (Minn. 1976); State ex rel. Spurck v. Civil Serv. Bd., 226 Minn. 253, 32 N.W.2d 583 (1948); Minn. Stat. § 268.101; Minn. Stat. § 268.103.
Legal Issues in RESPONDENT-DEPARTMENT'S BRIEF AND APPENDIX:
Under the law, an appeal to a determination of ineligibility must be dismissed by an unemployment law judge, without exception, if it is untimely filed. Conversely, ULJs have jurisdiction over appeals filed within the 20- calendar-day period provided for by law. Eric Kangas filed his appeal of a determination of ineligibility within the 20-day period. Was the unemployment law judge required to hear the case, as the appeal was timely filed? Unemployment Law Judge David Huber found that Kangas timely filed his appeal, and that the ULJ had jurisdiction to consider it.
Also Filed: RELATOR'S REPLY BRIEF