Coverall North America, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development

── Coverall North America, Inc. v. New Jersey Department of Labor and Workforce Development ── Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division Date: May 21, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court." Although it is posted on the internet, this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited . R. 1:36-3. SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A-0462-24 COVERALL NORTH AMERICA, INC., Petitioner-Appellant, v. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Respondent-Respondent. Argued April 27, 2026 – Decided May 21, 2026 Before Judges Sabatino, Natali and Bergman. On appeal from the Commissioner, Division of Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, Agency Docket No. DOL 16- 004. Norman M. Leon (DLA Piper LLP (US)) of the Illinois and New York bars, admitted pro hac vice, argued the cause for appellant (DLA Piper LLP (US), attorneys; David S. Sager and Norman M. Leon, on the briefs).  Nadya Comas, Deputy Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent (Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General, attorney; Sookie Bae-Park, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel; Daniel Resler, Nadya Comas, Yael Fisher, and Sara Vasquez, Deputy Attorneys General, on the brief). PER CURIAM Coverall North America, Inc. ("Coverall") appeals a September 9, 2024 final agency decision of the Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development ("the Department") reversing an Administrative Law Judge's ("ALJ's") decision dated April 24, 2024, in Coverall's favor. The Commissioner determined that Coverall owed more than $1 million in unpaid contributions and interest as required by the New Jersey Unemployment Compensation Law ("UCL"), N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71. The Commissioner concluded Coverall was the employer of janitorial cleaners and failed what is commonly known as "the ABC Test" for independent contractor status. For reasons that we explain herein, we remand the final agency decision to address two important points concerning the control of pricing and the independence of certain individual cleaners. A-0462-24 2  I. Because we are remanding the case, we need not describe the facts here definitively or comprehensively. A short summary will suffice. Before doing so, we set forth some basic facets of the applicable statutory scheme. A. The UCL requires that employers meeting applicable criteria are obligated to pay certain contributions to the Unemployment and Disabilities Insurance Funds. N.J.S.A. 43:21-7. Administered by the Department, the program assures that critical benefits are available to support workers during periods of unemployment and temporary disability. Ibid.; see also N.J.A.C. 12:17-1.1. N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6) provides that "[s]ervices performed by an individual for remuneration shall be deemed to be employment" under the UCL unless it is shown by an alleged employer that: (A) Such individual has been and will continue to be free from control or direction over the performance of such service, both under his contract of service and in fact; (B) Such service is either outside the usual course of business for which such service is performed, or that such se