Avoiding Misclassification of New Jersey Workers
"Misclassification of workers ... places an employer in an incredibly uncomfortable and precarious position both legally and financially," writes Lindabury's Joshua L. Weiner.
July 18, 2024 at 02:00 PM
6 minute read
When determining whether to classify a worker as an employee or an independent contractor, employers in New Jersey must follow the "ABC" test. Under this test, an individual receiving remuneration in return for rendering services is presumed to be an employee unless the employer can meet its burden of proving all three of the following elements:
- The individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of work performed, both under contract of service and in fact.
- The work is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed, or the work is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed.
- The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.
As will be described in further detail below, the consequences of misclassifying workers can be severe. One, employers who misclassify their workers as independent contractors can be found liable by the New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) for the contributions required to be made on behalf of employees to the unemployment, temporary disability, and family leave funds. Two, employers can also be exposed to substantial liability under New Jersey's wage and hour laws for failing to pay the proper minimum and overtime wages of those workers who were misclassified as independent contractors. Three, a determination by either a court or the DLWD that an employer misclassified employees as independent contractors may find itself subject to audits by their workers compensation and employment practices liability insurance carriers. Four, misclassification of workers may result in the DLWD imposing a stop-work order and substantial penalties against a violating employer. Any of those possibilities, let alone the prospect of all of them, places an employer in an incredibly uncomfortable and precarious position both legally and financially.
While the prospect of the imposition of penalties and stop-work orders should give employers significant pause before haphazardly deciding to classify workers as independent contractors, the 2019 amendments to the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law further allow misclassified workers who did not receive the proper minimum wage, overtime, or timely payment of wages to seek treble damages (three times the amount of wages owed to them). In addition, the statute of limitations for wage claims, which was two years prior to the 2019 amendments, is now six years. Accordingly, employers subject to potential wage claims must be mindful of the prospect of owing triple the amount of wages owed to misclassified workers which, permitted to go back as far as six years, can add up to significant liability.
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
© 2025 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 AllWas $1.3M in 'Incentive' Payments Commission? NJ Justices Weigh Arguments
3 minute readAfter DEI Rollbacks, Employment Lawyers See Potential For Targeting Corporate Commitment to Equality
7 minute readTrending Stories
- 1States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 2Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 3Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 4Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
- 5Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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