Opinion
A22-0927
02-13-2023
Odell Holmes, Relator, v. Spectrum Property Management Company Inc, Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.
Department of Employment and Economic Development File No. 48489238-3
Considered and decided by Bjorkman, Presiding Judge; Jesson, Judge; and Frisch, Judge.
ORDER OPINION
Jennifer L. Frisch, Judge
BASED ON THE FILE, RECORD, AND PROCEEDINGS, AND BECAUSE:
1. Relator Odell Holmes became ill with pneumonia and was unable to perform the physical labor that was required of his job as a maintenance technician with respondentemployer Spectrum Property Management Company Inc. After receiving notice of Spectrum's long-term disability plan and without asking Spectrum for accommodations, Holmes submitted his written resignation because he "knew [he] couldn't go back to work." Holmes applied for unemployment benefits.
2. Respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED) determined that Holmes was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit for medical reasons and did not request accommodations. Holmes administratively appealed the determination.
3. An unemployment-law judge (ULJ) held a hearing and determined that Holmes was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he quit his employment because of his health, not a reason caused by Spectrum, and did not ask Spectrum for accommodations. Holmes requested reconsideration, challenging only the ULJ's determination that he was ineligible for benefits because he did not request accommodations from Spectrum. A ULJ affirmed the determination.
4. On appeal, Holmes only asserts that he quit because he was being asked to complete work outside of his job description and his workload was too much for one person. Because Holmes did not raise this issue to the ULJ, we decline to consider it on appeal. See Peterson v. Ne. Bank-Minneapolis, 805 N.W.2d 878, 883 (Minn.App. 2011) (stating that "because this issue was not raised before the ULJ, it is not properly before this court on review").
5. Based on the issues that were raised before the ULJ and the record as a whole, we see no error in the determination that Holmes was not eligible for unemployment benefits. An applicant for unemployment benefits is ineligible for benefits if they quit their employment unless an exception applies. Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1 (2022). One exception applies if it was medically necessary for the applicant to quit because of the applicant's serious illness or injury (medical-necessity exception), and another exception applies if the applicant quit for a good reason caused by the employer (good-reason exception). Id., subds. 1(1) (good-reason exception), 1(7) (medical-necessity exception), 3 (good-reason exception definition) (2022).
6. Whether an applicant for unemployment benefits qualifies for an exception to ineligibility for quitting employment is a question of law, which we review de novo. See Peppi v. Phyllis Wheatley Cmty. Ctr., 614 N.W.2d 750, 752 (Minn.App. 2000) (applying de novo review to the question of whether an applicant qualified for the good-reason exception). We review the ULJ's factual findings "in the light most favorable to the decision and will not disturb those findings as long as there is evidence in the record that reasonably tends to sustain them." Wilson v. Mortg. Res. Ctr., Inc., 888 N.W.2d 452, 460 (Minn. 2016) (quotations omitted).
7. The ULJ determined that Holmes did not qualify for the medical-necessity exception because he did not request accommodations from Spectrum. The medicalnecessity exception "only applies if the applicant informs the employer of the medical problem and requests accommodation and no reasonable accommodation is made available." Minn. Stat. § 268.095, subd. 1(7). The ULJ's determination is supported by the record. In their responses to DEED questionnaires, both Holmes and Spectrum stated that Holmes did not request accommodations, and they both testified accordingly.
8. Holmes testified that he did not ask Spectrum if he could come back to work in a different position because he believed that there was no other job available at Spectrum. But to qualify for the medical-necessity exception, an applicant must make a request for accommodation even if they believe it would be futile. See id. (stating that the medical- necessity exception only applies if the applicant requests accommodation); McCulloch v. Swanstrom, No. A21-1367, 2022 WL 3022540, at *4 (Minn.App. Aug. 1, 2022) (reasoning that the statutory language does not excuse requesting an accommodation if making the request would likely have been futile).
We cite this nonprecedential opinion as persuasive authority. Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c).
9. The first ULJ decision also determined that Holmes did not qualify for the good-reason exception because the reason that he quit was his poor health, which was not caused by Spectrum. This determination is supported by the record. In response to a DEED questionnaire, Holmes stated that he quit because of his health. Holmes also consistently testified that he quit because he was unable to perform the physical labor that his job required because of his health.
10. Because the ULJ's findings are supported by the record and we decline to consider the new issue Holmes raises on appeal, we see no error in the ULJ's determination.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
1. The ULJ's order is affirmed.
2. Pursuant to Minn. R. Civ. App. P. 136.01, subd. 1(c), this order opinion is nonprecedential, except as law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.