Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • IMMIGRATION—U.S.: Justices allow terminations of TPS for Syria and Haiti to go into effect
    • AGENCY NEWS—FCC Chairman defends stance against ‘discriminatory’ DEI practices
    • DISCHARGE—7th Cir.: Fired transgender Chicago bus operator failed to establish sex discrimination, FMLA violations
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—7th Cir.: City not required to grant in-place promotion to firefighter who had suffered a stoke
    • DISCRIMINATION—DISABILITY—8th Cir.: Judgment for USDA affirmed in disability bias suit brought by abused spouse
    • DISCRIMINATION—PREGNANCY—Accounting professor’s pregnancy discrimination verdict affirmed on appeal in Michigan Tech case
    • DISCRIMINATION—RACE—4th Cir.: State police supervisor not entitled to qualified immunity in race-based hostile work environment suit
    • DISCRIMINATION—RELIGIOUS—9th Cir.: Flight attendants fired after commenting on Equality Act revive religious bias claims
    • EMPLOYEE STATUS—N.D. Ill.: Chicago news rivals split wins in bitter copyright showdown
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—Court Finds Streamers are Employees Under New Jersey Law Despite Independent Contractor Status Under the FLSA
    • EXPERT INSIGHTS—The New ‘ABCs’: NJDOL Adopts New Rules on Worker Classification
    • FEDERAL LEGISLATION—Bicameral legislation would restrict surveillance of employees
    • FEDERAL REGULATIONS—VA proposes eliminating disparate-impact liability regs under Title VI
    • LABOR PULSE—The more things change, the more they remain the same? Two encyclicals, 155 years, same naivete
    • ON THE LABOR FRONT—The House Takes a bite of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act; Does the Senate have the same appetite?
    • PROCEDURE—4th Cir.: South Carolina’s ‘pre-enforcement, facial challenge’ to OSHA rule was brought too late
    • RETALIATION—3d Cir.: Relaxed standard for Title VII retaliation claims applies to ADA, FMLA claims
    • TRADE SECRETS—N.D. Ohio: Preliminary injunction denied in industrial gas turbine airfoils trade secrets dispute
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, EXPERT INSIGHTS—The New ‘ABCs’: NJDOL Adopts New Rules on Worker Classification, (Jun 25, 2026)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Cole Schotz
    Organizations Mentioned:Cole Schotz, PA

    By Randi Kochman and Jamie Clare of Cole Schotz P.C.

    The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development adopted new regulations on May 5, 2026, clarifying the statutory “ABC test” for use in determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. The regulations w ...

    By Randi Kochman and Jamie Clare of Cole Schotz P.C.

    The New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development adopted new regulations on May 5, 2026, clarifying the statutory “ABC test” for use in determining whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. The regulations will be published on June 1, 2026, and are set to take effect on October 1, 2026.

    What Does the New Rule Provide?

    The new regulations will apply to multiple statutes enforced by the NJDOL including the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law, the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law. As noted in the comments to the Final Rule, New Jersey’s ABC test has been the test for independent contractor status under the State's Unemployment Compensation Law since 1936.

    Under the new regulations, to be classified as an independent contractor under New Jersey law, a putative employer has the burden of proof to meet all three (3) prongs of the ABC test:

    1. the worker has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of services both under the worker’s contract of service and in fact;

    2. the work performed is either outside the usual course of the business for which the work is being performed or the work is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise; and

    3. the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business.

    How Does the New ABC Test Differ from the Previous One?

    Previously, the ABC test relied on interpretative case law. The new rules adopt the test into the New Jersey Administrative Code, giving the NJDOL direct authority to interpret the test during audits.

    The primary differences created by the new test are:

    Prong A of the previous test focused on whether the employer actually exercised control or direction over the worker. The new rule specifies that the business must prove it does not exercise control and does not “reserve the right to control or direct the individual’s work.”

    Prong B of the new rule clarifies that work is not outside the usual course of business if it is “integrated into the hiring entity’s business,” even if the work is done off premises. The previous test allowed flexibility in determining if a worker was part of the “usual course” of business.

    Finally, Prong C of the new test requires proof that the worker is “customarily engaged” in an independent business, meaning they must operate an entity that exists and can survive independently of the relationship at issue. The new rules explicitly state that having an LLC, using a digital app or having a 1099 contract are not enough on their own to prove this.

    What Should Employers Do Now?

    As noted above, the new rules will become operative on October 1, 2026, 120 days from the anticipated June 1, 2026 publication/effective date. Accordingly, business groups may still seek to object to or modify the regulations during the 120-day lead time. Employers—especially those who use independent contractors—should reevaluate their current worker classification to avoid a potential audit or liability for worker misclassification.

    As the law continues to evolve on these matters, please note that this article is current as of date and time of publication and may not reflect subsequent developments. The content and interpretation of the issues addressed herein is subject to change. Cole Schotz P.C. disclaims any and all liability with respect to actions taken or not taken based on any or all of the contents of this publication to the fullest extent permitted by law. This is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Do not act or refrain from acting upon the information contained in this publication without obtaining legal, financial and tax advice. For further information, please do not hesitate to reach out to your firm contact or to any of the attorneys listed in this publication. No aspect of this advertisement has been approved by the highest court in any state.

    Randi Kochman

    Jamie Clare

    Cole Schotz P.C.

    1325 Avenue of the Americas

    19th Floor

    New York, NY 10019United States

    Tel.: +1 212 752 8000

    E-mail: MBascone@coleschotz.com

    URL: www.coleschotz.com//

    © Mondaq Ltd, 2026 - Tel. +44 (0)20 8544 8300 - http://www.mondaq.com

    Attorneys: Randi Kochman and Jamie Clare (Cole Schotz).

    ExpertInsights: ExpertInsights WageHour EmployeeStatus Overtime StateRegulations NewJerseyNews

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use