Do you understand what S863 would do? Have legislators tried to reassure you that the legislation would just “codify existing regulations”? Suggested that anyone with a problem under S863 is already out of compliance with the law?
You are right to be concerned. The proposed legislation would codify a disputed agency Interpretation of the existing ABC test. And despite assurances that S863 “is not the California bill,” it’s an interpretation that is more restrictive than the controversial AB5 legislation in California.
The confusion stems from the competing interpretations that the courts and Department of Labor bring to the existing ABC test. Freelancers might comply with existing standards as reflected in the decisions of the New Jersey courts, and yet run afoul of the more restrictive interpretation of the Department of Labor. Although that DOL interpretation has been rejected by New Jersey Appellate Division and Supreme Courts, it continues to be applied in DOL adjudications.
NJCJI has prepared a brief memo that explains how the New Jersey Department of Labor has persistently departed from the New Jersey Courts’ prevailing interpretations of the existing statutory ABC test, applying the test as if legislation even more restrictive than California’s AB5 were already the law.
Read the memo here:
Contact Alida if you would like to discuss further.
Leave A Comment