A Minneapolis dispensary owner comes back from a long weekend to three days of unopened mail, one envelope from the State of Minnesota mixed in. It's a Request for Information about a budtender who quit six weeks ago. He remembers exactly how it went: she gave two weeks' notice, worked every shift of it, left on good terms, even sent a nice text after. Nothing to argue with, he figures, and sets the envelope on the pile behind the register.

Three months later, his unemployment tax rate notice comes in higher than last year's. Nobody at the counter can tell him why.

He wasn't wrong about the merits. He was slow about the paperwork — and Minnesota's unemployment law prices those two things on entirely different scales.

Start with the default, because it's easy to miss until it shows up on a rate notice. Minn. Stat. 268.047, subd. 1 says unemployment benefits paid to a former worker "will be used in computing the future tax rate of a taxpaying base period employer or charged to the reimbursable account of a base period nonprofit or government employer that has elected to be liable for reimbursements" — and that's the rule for every base period employer, automatically, unless an exception applies. Nobody has to prove anything against you for the tab to start running. The claim gets filed, the benefits get paid if the applicant qualifies, and the charge lands on your account in the ordinary course, the same way a utility bill shows up whether or not you read it.

That's the piece most operators don't picture. This isn't a lawsuit where silence just means you didn't show up to defend yourself. It's a running account, and the state doesn't wait for you to object before it starts posting entries to it.

Minnesota gives base period employers real exceptions, not just a chance to complain after the fact. Subdivision 3, clause (2) — available only to taxpaying employers — keeps benefits off your rate if "the applicant quit the employment, unless it was determined under section 268.095, to have been because of a good reason caused by the employer or because the employer notified the applicant of discharge within 30 calendar days." A clean quit protects your rate. A quit dressed up to avoid a discharge you'd already decided on, inside that 30-day window, does not.

Clause (3) of the same subdivision does the same for "the employer discharged the applicant from employment because of employment misconduct as determined under section 268.095." Ordinary misconduct — the kind this newsletter's Sep 8 piece on the applicant's side covered from the worker's chair — clears a taxpaying employer's rate.

Here's the wrinkle worth knowing if your organization is structured as a nonprofit or a government entity that elected reimbursable status instead of paying UI tax: subdivision 3's quit and ordinary-misconduct exceptions are labeled for taxpaying employers only. Subdivision 2, clause (1) gives a parallel exception that reaches both taxpaying and reimbursable employers alike, but only for aggravated employment misconduct under 268.095 — a narrower, more serious category than the plain misconduct that protects a taxpaying employer's rate under subdivision 3. We flag this because a handful of MNCC's own community partners run as nonprofits, and this is exactly the kind of distinction that's easy to assume doesn't apply to your entity type until it does.

This is the fact most likely to be either wildly overstated or completely unknown, so we want to be precise about it. Minn. Stat. 268.101, subd. 2, para. (b) applies only if a base period employer meets all three of these conditions: the employer "(1) was not the applicant's most recent employer before the application for unemployment benefits; (2) did not employ the applicant during the six calendar months before the application for unemployment benefits; and (3) did not raise an issue of ineligibility as a result of a quit or discharge of the applicant within ten calendar days of notification."

If all three are true, here's the actual consequence, quoted exactly: "then any exception under section 268.047, subdivisions 2 and 3, begins the Sunday two weeks following the week that the issue of ineligibility as a result of a quit or discharge of the applicant was raised by the employer." Read that again, because it doesn't say what a lot of operators assume it says. It doesn't erase your exception. It doesn't bar you from ever raising the issue. It delays the start date of your relief by pushing it to two weeks after you finally speak up — meaning every week you sat on the letter between day ten and the day you actually responded is a week of charges you're paying for that you'd otherwise have been excused from.

And this whole mechanism only exists for one specific category of employer: a base period employer who wasn't the applicant's most recent job and hadn't employed them in the last six months. If you're the shop the person just left, or one they worked for sometime in the past two quarters, this particular ten-day rule isn't the one governing you at all.

If you are the most recent employer, or employed the applicant within the last six months, subdivision 2(b)'s specific ten-day delay rule doesn't apply to you — but you're not free of a clock either. Subdivision 2, paragraph (c) says an issue of ineligibility "is determined based upon that information required of an applicant, any information that may be obtained from an applicant or employer, and information from any other source." Nothing in the statute's text sets a specific number of days for this general notice. In practice, the Department of Employment and Economic Development's own guidance to employers describes "strict due dates" on the Request for Information it sends out, and warns plainly that if you miss it, the department "will make the determination using the information that is available" — meaning without yours.

That is not a forfeiture of your formal rights. The same DEED guidance goes on to say, in its own words, "even if the due date has passed, you should still respond" — a late answer isn't waved off, and every employer, on time or not, keeps the same 45-day reconsideration and Court of Appeals clock described below. What you actually risk by missing this due date is narrower and more ordinary: losing your seat at the table for the first, cheapest determination, and having to win the same argument later, on appeal, instead of at the outset. We're citing DEED's own applicant-facing description of its process here, not a statute, because no provision in chapter 268 spells out a specific day count for this broader category — worth knowing the difference between what the law requires and what the agency's workflow actually does.

Everything above assumes an employer who's just slow, not dishonest. Minnesota treats those very differently, and the mirror-image penalty for an employer sits in a section most operators have never heard of, because it isn't the one this newsletter already covered from the worker's side.

Minn. Stat. 268.18, subd. 2 — the section behind the 40 percent misrepresentation penalty in the Sep 8 piece — reaches applicants only; its language runs entirely in terms of what "an applicant" owes back. The employer-side version lives in a different statute entirely: Minn. Stat. 268.184. It penalizes an employer who "made a false statement or representation without a good faith belief as to correctness of the statement or representation or knowingly failed to disclose a material fact" in order to either help an applicant collect benefits they're not entitled to, or to prevent or reduce benefits an applicant is otherwise owed. The penalty is "the greater of $500 or 100 percent" of whichever of three amounts resulted from the false statement — the overpayment to the applicant, the benefits wrongly withheld from the applicant, or the payment the employer itself avoided.

Sit with that comparison for a second. The worker-side penalty this newsletter already described is 40 percent of the overpayment. The employer-side penalty for the same category of conduct — a knowing false statement, not an honest mistake — is 100 percent, with a hard $500 floor even when the dollar amount at stake is small. Fudging a separation reason to keep a former worker from collecting carries exactly the same exposure as helping one collect fraudulently. The system doesn't treat an employer's lie as the lesser problem.

Should a determination get appealed, Minn. Stat. 268.105 puts an employer on the identical calendar an applicant is on: subdivision 2(a) gives "any party" 45 calendar days to file a request for reconsideration after an unemployment law judge's decision, and subdivision 7(a) gives 45 more calendar days after the reconsideration decision to petition the Court of Appeals — a deadline that runs against every party to the case, employer included, whether or not that employer answered the original notice on time.

One requirement doesn't carry over, and it's worth knowing which one. The Sep 8 piece on the applicant's side flagged that a worker has to personally attend a hearing — a representative alone doesn't satisfy the statute's participation requirement for an applicant. That specific personal-appearance mandate is written for applicants; an employer can satisfy participation through a representative alone. That's not a loophole so much as a recognition that a business speaks through the people it sends. But showing up through nobody at all still carries the applicant-side consequence in spirit: failing to participate in any form risks being treated as having failed to exhaust administrative remedies, the same procedural dead end this newsletter described for a worker who skips their own hearing.

We want to be honest about where the record runs out rather than fill the gap with confidence we haven't earned. DEED's own guidance tells a most-recent or six-month employer to respond even after the due date has passed, and this newsletter found nothing suggesting a missed due date closes off appeal rights that 268.105 gives "any party" regardless. What we did not find is any case law, DEED guidance, or practitioner commentary describing how much weight a late-but-pre-determination response actually carries in practice — whether it can still change the outcome of the first determination, or whether, as a practical matter, that decision is effectively made the moment the due date passes and a late answer mostly just sets up the appeal you'll need anyway. Subdivision 2(b)'s explicit two-week-delay mechanism is written only for the narrower base period category; nothing we found states the size of the practical cost for everyone else, only that it exists.

We also did not find any enforcement record or reported decision testing where the line actually falls between an honest clerical mistake on a Request for Information and the "without a good faith belief as to correctness" standard that triggers a 268.184 penalty. The statute's language draws that line in principle; we found no example of a real case drawing it in practice.

Individual gifts fund what program grants cannot: student access, the free statewide job board, and new program development. Give any time.

Be precise about what a prompt response actually buys, because overstating it here would repeat a mistake this newsletter has flagged in every employer-facing piece this month — and the price of waiting isn't the same for every employer. If you're the narrow category of base period employer subdivision 2(b) describes, answering within ten calendar days keeps your exception starting from the actual week it should, instead of two weeks after whenever you finally speak up. That's a known, bounded cost: real money, but a specific, calculable amount, not a shield against a valid claim decided on its merits. If you're the most recent or six-month employer instead, the price of waiting isn't a number this newsletter can hand you — it's the more expensive, less certain path of winning on appeal what you could likely have settled at the first determination, on the same 45-day clock as anyone else, with no forfeiture of that right either way. Neither price — bounded or not — has anything to do with whether what you actually wrote down was true. A same-day response built on a knowing misrepresentation carries the full weight of Section 268.184 regardless of how fast you were.

The dispensary owner from the top of this piece wasn't lying to anyone, and he wasn't wrong that a clean two-weeks'-notice quit should have cost him nothing. He just treated a running account like a courtesy notice he could get to later. Minnesota's unemployment law doesn't care how right you are on the merits until you actually tell it so — and every week between the envelope landing on the pile and you finally opening it is a week the account keeps moving without you.

Answer the letter the day it arrives, whether or not you think you have anything to argue. Depending on which employer you are, silence either costs you a known two weeks, or it costs you an argument you'll have to win later instead of now — but it never costs you your formal right to be heard at all. Lying costs more than either, and unlike a late answer, that exposure doesn't shrink no matter how fast you send it.

Minn. Stat. 268.047 (subdivisions 1, 2 clause 1, and 3 clauses 2 and 3), Minn. Stat. 268.101 (subdivision 1 paragraph (b), and subdivision 2 paragraphs (a) through (c)), Minn. Stat. 268.184 (subdivision 1), and Minn. Stat. 268.105 (subdivisions 1a, 2, and 7) were fetched verbatim from the Revisor's office this run, with the 268.101 ten-calendar-day language and the 268.047 subdivision 2/3 misconduct-versus-aggravated-misconduct distinction each cross-checked against a second independent source (codes.findlaw.com) that returned matching wording. The 268.18 misrepresentation-penalty figure (40 percent) referenced for comparison is reused from this newsletter's Sep 8 piece, already independently verified that run against 268.18 directly — this run additionally confirmed, by fetching 268.18 again, that no subdivision of that section reaches employers at all; the employer-side penalty lives in the separate 268.184, not in 268.18 as this newsletter's own topic notes had assumed going into this run.

We did not assert a general statutory day-count for how quickly a most-recent or six-month employer must respond to a Request for Information. No provision in chapter 268 states one; the "strict due dates" language is DEED's own operational description of its process, sourced to a DEED employer-guidance video transcript, not to a statute, and is labeled as such in the body.

We did not assert a specific dollar cost or certainty for a most-recent or six-month employer who responds late. DEED's own guidance says to respond even after the due date, and 268.105's appeal deadlines are open to that employer regardless — so we did not call this a forfeiture. But we found nothing quantifying how much a late-but-pre-determination response actually changes the outcome in practice, and said so as an open question rather than guess at a number.

We did not extend the aggravated-misconduct-vs-misconduct distinction in 268.047 beyond what the two independently-checked fetches actually said, and did not assert how common a reimbursable nonprofit/government cannabis employer actually is in Minnesota — we don't have a source for that and didn't invent one.

We did not find, and did not assert, any case law or enforcement record testing the "without a good faith belief" line in Minn. Stat. 268.184 against a real, borderline employer response.

Say hello anytime: [email protected].

Minnesota Cannabis College is a Twin Cities-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit. Donations are tax-deductible as allowed by law. EIN 86-2319307.

Discover your next career in cannabis.

Keep showing up, keep cheering each other on — and as always, our mission is education as repair! 👨‍🎓

The MNCC Team

P.S.

New here? Check our Website and get matched with an MNCC program that is right for you!