This opinion will be unpublished and

may not be cited except as provided by

Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (2014).

STATE OF MINNESOTA

IN COURT OF APPEALS

A14-1974

Tanya Jacobs, 

Relator, 

vs. 

Department of Employment and Economic Development, 

Respondent.

Filed June 29, 2015

Affirmed as modified

Bjorkman, Judge

Department of Employment and Economic Development

File No. 32802556-2

Tanya Jacobs, Hutchinson, Minnesota (pro se relator)

Lee B. Nelson, Munazza Humayun, Minnesota Department of Employment and 

Economic Development, St. Paul, Minnesota (for respondent Department of Employment 

and Economic Development) 

Considered and decided by Ross, Presiding Judge; Bjorkman, Judge; and Willis, 

Judge.



 

U N P U B L I S H E D O P I N I O N

BJORKMAN, Judge

Relator challenges the determination of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ) that 

she is ineligible to receive unemployment benefits for the period of April 27 through June 

 



 Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to 

Minn. Const. art. VI, § 10. 
2

7, 2014, because she was not actively seeking employment. Respondent department 

argues that the ULJ’s determination should be modified to reflect relator’s employment 

efforts in the first week of June. We affirm as modified.

FACTS

Relator Tanya Jacobs worked as a bartender and server for Lamplighter Lounge. 

On March 13, 2014, Jacobs went on medical leave because she injured her foot. On 

April 20, she told her supervisor, Susan Solstad, that she could return to work on April 

29, but only on a limited basis while her foot continued to heal. Lamplighter did not have 

employment hours that corresponded to Jacobs’s limited availability, so Solstad put 

Jacobs on on-call status. Jacobs established an unemployment-benefits account effective 

April 27 and received unemployment benefits until she returned to work at Lamplighter 

on June 7. Around that time, Jacobs also began working for another restaurant, Cactus 

Jack’s, and did not work at Lamplighter after June 14.

Lamplighter challenged Jacobs’s eligibility for unemployment benefits. After a 

hearing, the ULJ found that Jacobs was not actively seeking alternative employment 

between April 29 and June 7, having “looked into” only one job opportunity, and 

concluded on that basis that Jacobs was not eligible for unemployment benefits.1 Jacobs 

sought reconsideration, asserting that she misunderstood the ULJ’s questions about her 

job search and submitting statements from three witnesses indicating that Jacobs had 

spoken with them about work opportunities during the weeks in question. The ULJ 

 

1

The ULJ also addressed whether Jacobs quit her employment or was discharged, but the 

parties did not raise these issues on reconsideration or in this appeal.
3

affirmed, discrediting Jacobs’s claim that she was confused during the hearing and 

rejecting the witness statements as inconsistent with Jacobs’s testimony and insufficient 

to show an active employment search. Jacobs brings this certiorari appeal.

D E C I S I O N

We review a ULJ’s order to determine whether it is “(1) in violation of 

constitutional provisions; (2) in excess of the statutory authority or jurisdiction of the 

department; (3) made upon unlawful procedure; (4) affected by other error of law; 

(5) unsupported by substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted; or 

(6) arbitrary or capricious.” Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d) (2014). We review 

findings of fact in the light most favorable to the ULJ’s decision and will not disturb them

if they are substantially supported by the evidence. Skarhus v. Davanni’s Inc., 721 

N.W.2d 340, 344 (Minn. App. 2006). Whether an applicant is eligible for unemployment

benefits is a question of law, which we review de novo. Jenkins v. Am. Express Fin. 

Corp., 721 N.W.2d 286, 289 (Minn. 2006).

To be eligible for unemployment benefits for a given week, an applicant must be 

“actively seeking suitable employment.” Minn. Stat. § 268.085, subd. 1(5) (2014). 

“‘Actively seeking suitable employment’ means those reasonable, diligent efforts an 

individual in similar circumstances would make if genuinely interested in obtaining 

suitable employment under the existing conditions in the labor market area.” Id., subd. 

16(a) (2014). Whether an applicant was actively seeking suitable employment is a 

factual determination. See McNeilly v. Dep’t of Emp’t & Econ. Dev., 778 N.W.2d 707, 

711-12 (Minn. App. 2010).
4

Jacobs challenges the ULJ’s finding that she was not actively seeking suitable 

employment during the period in question, arguing that she was confused when she stated 

she had made only one employment inquiry.2 We are not persuaded. After reviewing the 

hearing transcript and the witness statements Jacobs submitted in support of 

reconsideration, the ULJ expressly discredited Jacobs’s assertion that she was confused. 

Because the ULJ is in the best position to weigh the credibility of witnesses, we defer to 

that determination. Lamah v. Doherty Emp’t Grp., Inc., 737 N.W.2d 595, 601 (Minn. 

App. 2007). Moreover, the ULJ’s credibility determination finds ample support in the 

record. The transcript reveals that the ULJ clarified which time period was at issue 

immediately before and during the discussion of Jacobs’s employment search. Jacobs 

testified that she had no contact with Lamplighter for four weeks after being placed on 

the on-call list, did not contact Cactus Jack’s about employment until June, and made one 

inquiry into a job at a nursing home on an unspecified date. This testimony as a whole 

substantially supports the ULJ’s finding that Jacobs was not actively seeking employment 

during April and May.

We are similarly unpersuaded by Jacobs’s contention that it is “not fair” to require 

her to pay back the unemployment benefits she received. The repayment requirement is 

 

2

Jacobs also asserts for the first time on appeal that she sought employment through 

classified advertisements and job-search websites. This evidence was not part of the 

record on which the ULJ based his decision and is not properly before us on appeal. See

Icenhower v. Total Auto., Inc., 845 N.W.2d 849, 857 (Minn. App. 2014) (stating that this 

court’s review is limited to the record before the ULJ), review denied (Minn. July 15, 

2014). 
5

automatic upon a determination of ineligibility and cannot be compromised or excused on 

equitable grounds. Minn. Stat. §§ 268.069, subd. 3, .18, subds. 1(a), 6 (2014).

But respondent Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic 

Development (DEED) urges us to modify the ULJ’s ineligibility determination to reflect 

Jacobs’s “more rigorous[]” job search in the first week of June. DEED argues that 

Jacobs’s testimony as a whole indicates that she was actively seeking employment during 

that week. We agree. Jacobs testified that Solstad asked her on May 29 about her 

upcoming availability and that she told Solstad on June 4 that she could do some work for 

Lamplighter but was also trying to work at Cactus Jack’s. Jacobs returned to work at 

Lamplighter on June 7 and began working for Cactus Jack’s around the same time. This 

testimony indicates that Jacobs was pursuing multiple employment opportunities during 

the week of June 1. On this record, we conclude that a one-week modification is 

appropriate. Accordingly, we modify the ULJ’s determination to reflect that Jacobs was 

ineligible for unemployment benefits from April 27-May 31, and otherwise affirm.

Affirmed as modified.