Rodeshia C. Galbert, Relator, vs. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent.

Rodeshia C. Galbert, Relator, vs. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Respondent, Department of Employment and Economic Development, Respondent. A06-1431, Court of Appeals Unpublished, May 1, 2007.

This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480 A. 08, subd. 3 (2006).

 

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A06-1431

 

Rodeshia C. Galbert,

Relator,

 

vs.

 

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.,

Respondent,

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development,

Respondent.

 

Filed May 1, 2007

Affirmed
Klaphake, Judge

 

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 5239 06

 

Rodeshia C. Galbert, 18211 Kelly Boulevard, Apt. 823, Dallas, TX  75287-4632 (pro se relator)

 

Wells Fargo Bank NA, c/o Talx Employer Services LLC, P.O. Box 1160, Columbus, OH  43216-1160 (respondent)

 

Linda A. Holmes, Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development, 1st National Bank Building, 332 Minnesota Street, Suite E200, St. Paul, MN 55101-1351 (for respondent Department)

 

            Considered and decided by Klaphake, Presiding Judge, Willis, Judge, and Wright, Judge.

U N P U B L I S H E D   O P I N I O N

KLAPHAKE, Judge

            Relator Rodeshia Galbert challenges a decision by an unemployment law judge (ULJ) that affirms on reconsideration an earlier decision by the ULJ dismissing relator's appeal as untimely.  Relator acknowledges that she erroneously faxed her appeal letter to the unemployment office, rather than to the appeals office.  She nevertheless insists that she should be given an opportunity to discuss her reasons for quitting her job as a lead teller with respondent Wells Fargo Bank.  Because relator's appeal was not filed within 30 days after the determination of disqualification was mailed to her, we affirm the ULJ's dismissal of this appeal as untimely.

D E C I S I O N

            On review, this court may affirm, remand for further proceedings, or reverse or modify the decision of the ULJ.  Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2006).  Reversal or modification of a decision is appropriate when a relator's substantial rights are prejudiced because the ULJ's findings, inferences, conclusion, or decision are affected by error of law or unsupported by substantial evidence.  Id.  The issue of whether the ULJ erred in dismissing an appeal for lack of jurisdiction is a question of law, which this court reviews de novo.  See Kennedy v. Am. Paper Recycling Corp., 714 N.W.2d 738, 739 (Minn. App. 2006).

            Minn. Stat. § 268.101, subd. 2(e) (2006), provides that a "determination of disqualification . . . shall be final unless an appeal is filed by the applicant . . . within 30 calendar days after sending."  When allowed, appeals may be filed by fax or electronic transmission, and may be restricted to specific telephone numbers or electronic addresses.  Minn. Stat. § 268.103, subd. 1 (2006).  An appeal made by fax is considered "filed" on the day it is received.  Minn. Stat. § 268.035, subd. 17 (2006).  These statutory time limitations are strictly construed:  "[t]here are no statutory provisions for extensions or exceptions to the appeal period," and "[w]hen an appeal from a disqualification determination is untimely, it must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction."  Kennedy, 714 N.W.2d at 740.

            Here, the 30-day time limit was clearly set forth in the determination of disqualification notice that was mailed to relator on March 2, 2006.  The notice also specified that any appeal filed by fax must be sent to the appeals office at the number set out in the notice.  Relator claims that she faxed an appeal, but acknowledges that "per my own error, I faxed it to the unemployment office" rather than to the appeals office.  Relator does not indicate the date of this fax or the number to which it was sent.

            On April 10, 2006, several days beyond the 30-day appeal period, relator faxed another appeal letter to the appeals office at the proper fax number.  The appeal letter was received by the office on that date.  On April 19, 2006, the ULJ summarily dismissed the appeal as untimely because not received by fax in the appeal office within the 30-day time period.

            Minnesota appellate courts have consistently held that time limits for appeals from all levels of decisions of the department are 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).  We therefore affirm the decision of the ULJ dismissing relator's appeal as untimely.

            Affirmed.