In June 2024 I wrote this article discussing in-depth the case of Musker v. Succhi, et al., and the implications the Appellate Division’s ruling had for wage disputes regarding sales commissions. As a reminder, the plaintiff in this case was suing her former employer for violations of the Wage Payment Law (“WPL”). The plaintiff was a salesperson who sold many millions of dollars of personal protective equipment (PPE) during COVID-19 and alleged she was entitled to significantly higher commissions than she actually received. The Appellate Division held, however, that the commissions for PPE sales were not ordinary commissions for multiple fact-intensive reasons. As a result, the Appellate Division concluded that the type of remuneration the plaintiff received did not fall within the definition of “wages” under the WPL.
As it turns out, this case has also gotten the attention of the New Jersey Supreme Court, which granted cert in September. The Court will be deciding the following question: “Under the circumstances presented, are the commissions at issue ‘wages’ covered by the Wage Payment Law or ‘supplementary incentives’ not covered by the Wage Payment Law?”
Although the Court’s Question Presented may appear to be narrow, the Court’s decision will likely have wide-reaching implications for how employers have to classify commissions under the New Jersey wage laws. I will continue to follow this case as it gets to argument and the Court subsequently issues its opinion.
[View source.]
