This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2004).






Michael Davis,








Department of Employment and Economic Development,



Filed September 27, 2005


Kalitowski, Judge


Department of Employment and Economic Development,

File No. 8679 04


Michael Davis, 1929 Third Avenue South, Apartment 102, Minneapolis, MN 55404 (pro se relator)


GAF, Building Materials Manufacturing Company, 50 Lowry Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55411-1620 (respondent)


Linda A. Holmes, Department of Employment and Economic Development, First National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Department of Employment and Economic Development)


            Considered and decided by Shumaker, Presiding Judge; Kalitowski, Judge; and Minge, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N


            Relator Michael Davis challenges the determination of the senior unemployment review judge (SURJ) that his appeal of the decision disqualifying him from unemployment benefits was untimely.  We affirm.


            The decision to dismiss an appeal as untimely is a question of law, which this court will review de novo.  Waletich Corp. v. Comm’r of Employment & Econ. Dev., 682 N.W.2d 663, 665 (Minn. App. 2004).  A determination of disqualification is final unless the applicant files an appeal within 30 days after the determination is sent to the applicant.  See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1(c), 2(a) (2004) (noting in subdivision 1(c) that “[t]he unemployment law judge’s decision is the final department decision unless a further appeal is filed pursuant to subdivision 2” and in subdivision 2(a) that within 30 calendar days after mailing of the unemployment law judge’s decision, “any involved applicant or involved employer may appeal a decision of an unemployment law judge and obtain a de novo review by a senior unemployment review judge”). “[S]tatutes designating the time for appeal from decisions of all levels of the Department should be strictly construed, regardless of mitigating circumstances.”  King v. Univ. of Minn., 387 N.W.2d 675, 677 (Minn. App. 1986), review denied (Minn. Aug. 13, 1986).  “An agency is deprived of jurisdiction to review its decision if a timely appeal is not filed as required by statute.”  Waletich, 682 N.W.2d at 665 (quotation omitted).

On June 17, 2004, an unemployment law judge disqualified relator from benefits because relator was discharged for employment misconduct.  Neither relator nor relator’s employer appeared at the evidentiary hearing to determine whether relator was disqualified.  The unemployment law judge determined relator was disqualified based on department records.  On December 21, 2004, relator appealed that decision.  The SURJ dismissed relator’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction because it was not filed within 30 days of June 17, 2004. 

            Relator’s notice of decision from the unemployment law judge states that the decision must be appealed within 30 days or the decision will become final under Minnesota law.  See Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subds. 1(c), 2(a).  Relator waited more than six months to appeal the unemployment law judge’s decision.  On this certiorari appeal, relator does not address this jurisdictional defect, but raises substantive issues about his termination and notes that the unemployment law judge’s decision to disqualify relator was based on “erroneous information.”

            Because relator’s appeal of the unemployment law judge’s decision to disqualify him from benefits was untimely, we affirm the SURJ and do not address relator’s arguments.