STATE SHORTHAND REPORTING SERVICES VS. NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, ET AL. (DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT) (CONSOLIDATED) (REDACTED) - Published
In this appeal, as an issue of first impression, the court was asked to consider whether N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10)— from the time of its enactment in 2010—provided an exemption for court reporters under the Unemployment Compensation Law ("UCL"), N.J.S.A. 43:21-1 to -71, or whether court reporters must still establish a Federal Unemployment Tax Act ("FUTA") exemption pursuant N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(1)(G). The court determined N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) does provide such an exemption and there is no requirement for court reporters to establish a FUTA exemption.
The court noted the express language of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10)provides that services performed by court reporters "shall not be deemed to be employment subject" to the UCL. The court presumed the Legislature understood the implications of removing court reporters from N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y) and the corresponding FUTA mandate and placing the amendment in a different section. The DOL asserted there were no scenarios in which the new statute, N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10), would apply to court reporters in a manner distinct from the operation of the prior exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y). The court rejected that interpretation, which would have rendered N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) meaningless because the amended statutemust be read in harmony with N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y) and the rest of the statute. The court further determined the Legislature was fully aware of the prior requirement for court reporters to establish a FUTA exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(7)(Y), which is why it amended the statute to remove the requirement for a FUTA exemption under N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10).
The court noted that although a sensible reading of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) provides an exemption for court reporters, to the extent the statutory language resulted in more than one reasonable interpretation, the legislative history unequivocally established the Legislature intended to dispense with the requirement to establish a FUTA exemption. Accordingly, the court reversed the Commissioner's holding with respect to the applicability of N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(10) and concluded petitioners are exempt from the time of the enactment of the statute in 2010.