Labor Department in Battle With Court-Reporting Firms Over Employee Classification
Companies that provide court-reporting services are claiming that the state Department of Labor is targeting their industry with audits in order to change the employment status of stenographers from independent contractors to employees
April 26, 2018 at 01:24 PM
5 minute read
Companies that provide court-reporting services are claiming that the state Department of Labor is targeting their industry with audits in order to change the employment status of stenographers from independent contractors to employees. A recent decision from the Office of Administrative Law appears to pour cold water on the state's efforts, but an appeal already has been filed.
At the center of the case is a 2010 legislative amendment that the department contends is invalid.
An administrative law judge ruled April 18 that an agency called Jersey Shore Reporting is not liable to pay unemployment or temporary disability taxes for its court reporter employees in 2010. That was the year a state law was enacted to exempt court reporters from being classified as employees, but the Department of Labor and Workforce Development contended that the exemption does not apply to Jersey Shore.
Before 2010, the services of court reporters were exempt under New Jersey's Unemployment Compensation Law (UCL) if they were designated as exempt under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) or if they could pass the ABC test. To be considered an independent contractor under the ABC test, the worker must be free from the employer's direction on how to perform the work, must do the work outside the company's usual course of business and off of its premises, and the worker must be customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation or profession.
Under the 2010 revision of the UCL, a court reporter is an independent contractor if that person works on a freelance basis, is paid a fee per transcript page, a flat attendance fee, or a combination thereof, the ruling said. The 2010 legislation states the exemption applies even without a parallel exemption under FUTA or the ABC test, according to the ruling.
The department argued that Jersey Shore must still show a parallel exemption under FUTA or show its reporters qualify as independent contractors under the ABC test to be exempt from unemployment tax, notwithstanding the 2010 legislation. As the DLWD argued in court papers, “Although the Legislature apparently intended to grant employers of court reporters a state exemption from taxation for their services under the UCL without regard to a corresponding FUTA exemption … a state exemption cannot be granted under state law unless there is a corresponding FUTA exemption.”
Administrative Law Judge Elia Pelios granted Jersey Shore's motion for summary judgment on its appeal of a department determination that the company was liable for $14,669 in 2010 unemployment and disability contributions. However, the judge denied the company's summary judgment motions on similar appeals of retroactive assessments—in amounts of $13,574 for 2009 and $10,992 for 2008—finding that genuine issues of material fact necessitate a hearing on those issues.
The record on the appeal was closed on April 27, 2015, nearly three years before Pelios issued his decision.
Court reporters have historically been classified as independent contractors, but the ruling in Jersey Shore Reporting v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development comes in the midst of the state's “full-scale industry wide audits of court reporters and agencies, in an effort to reclassify the entire industry into 'employer/employee' status,” according to the website of the Certified Court Reporters Association of New Jersey.
The audits' goal, the organization claims, is to increase tax revenue to the state. Independent contractors pay less tax than employees through legal deductions; and independent contractor agencies are not bound to withhold taxes, pay Social Security, unemployment, family leave insurance, and other withholdings required of employer/employee firms, according to the association.
If the Department of Labor succeeds, “it will fundamentally change the way we do business,” the organization's website warns. Tax deduction for many business expenses, such as hardware and software, travel, parking and tolls, office expenses, and continuing education seminars will no longer be deductible, the group claims.
The decision “allows the agencies to treat court reporters as an independent contractor without fear of being audited by the Department of Labor and having that independent contractor status revoked,” said James Prusinowski of Trimboli & Prusinowski in Morristown, who represents Jersey Shore Reporting in the Labor Department case. Prusinowski said he believes the state has set its sights on changing the status of court reporters because doing so would be a “backdoor revenue generator,” bringing money into state coffers without raising taxes.
He said the judge's decision would next be forwarded to the desk of Labor Commissioner Robert Asaro-Angelo, an appointee of Gov. Phil Murphy.
Procedurally, Asaro-Angelo is free to affirm the decision, to offer a contrary ruling or to take no action, which would allow Pelios' ruling to stand, according to Prusinowski. Either side is free to appeal Asaro-Angelo's ruling to the Superior Court's Appellate Division.
It's unclear how Asaro-Angelo would view the state's recent dealings with court-reporting companies, which began under former Gov. Chris Christie's administration, Prusinowski said. But on Monday the state filed a motion before Asaro-Angelo for interlocutory appeal of Pelios' decision, claiming Pelios erred in interpreting the pertinent state statute.
The state's motion says that the 2010 statutory amendment classifying court reporters as independent contractors carried no weight because the state did not grant a corresponding exemption under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act.
The state's appeal “seems to indicate that the DLWD, even after receiving a decision from the OAL, seeks to invalidate a clear statutory mandate. It also is an indication of the DLWD's overreach in applying the laws on small businesses,” Prusinowski said.
A spokesman for Asaro-Angelo, Thomas Wright, would not comment on Pelios' ruling. Wright also did not respond to questions about audits of court-reporting companies.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllJudges Say Social Media and Political Polarization Puts Them in Danger
Lawyers' Ability to Buy Competitor's Name as Keyword Mulled by NJ Supreme Court
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Infant Formula Judge Sanctions Kirkland's Jim Hurst: 'Overtly Crossed the Lines'
- 2Trump's Return to the White House: The Legal Industry Reacts
- 3Election 2024: Nationwide Judicial Races and Ballot Measures to Watch
- 4Climate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
- 5Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
- 6How Much Does the Frequency of Retirement Withdrawals Matter?
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250