Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

The New Jersey Supreme Court Finds that Commissions Are Wages Under the New Jersey Wage Payment Law

By Jonathan Wexler on March 19, 2025
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

On March 17, 2025, the New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously held in Musker v. Suuchi that commissions are included in the definition of “wages” under New Jersey’s Wage Payment Law (“WPL”).  Wages under the WPL are defined as “direct monetary compensation for labor or services rendered by an employee, where the amount is determined on a time, task, piece or commission basis.”  The trial and appellate courts held that commissions were a “supplementary incentive,” which is excluded from the definition of wages under the WPL. Supplementary incentives were described by the court as additional “compensation that motivates employees to do something above and beyond their labor or services.”

However, the Supreme Court emphasized that the ordinary definition of “commission” under the WPL includes direct compensation to an employee for performing a service.  The Court held that the definition of commission “always meets the definition of ‘wages’ under [the WPL]” and reversed the decision by the appellate court that commissions were a supplementary incentive to an employee’s wages. [1]

While not mentioned in the case, this clarification by the Supreme Court increases an employer’s liability for unpaid commissions.  New Jersey’s Wage Theft Act (a 2019 amendment to the WPL) provides employees with the ability to claim damages for both the unpaid wages and up to 200% of the unpaid wages in additional liquidated damages. Thus, an employer’s failure to pay commissions may result in significantly greater damages if the employer is found responsible for unpaid wages. Accordingly, New Jersey employers who pay commissions as part of employees’ compensation structure need to be mindful of this increased liability and ensure that their payments of commission to employees are accurate and timely pursuant to the applicable commission plan or agreement, and are not improperly withheld.


[1] The case was then remanded to the trial court for further determination of the plaintiff’s specific claim for unpaid commissions.

Photo of Jonathan Wexler Jonathan Wexler

Jonathan A. Wexler is a Shareholder in Vedder Price’s Labor and Employment practice area in the New York office.

He represents private-sector, not-for-profit and public-sector clients in litigation matters in federal and state courts and before such administrative agencies as the Equal Employment…

Jonathan A. Wexler is a Shareholder in Vedder Price’s Labor and Employment practice area in the New York office.

He represents private-sector, not-for-profit and public-sector clients in litigation matters in federal and state courts and before such administrative agencies as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the New York State Division of Human Rights, the National Labor Relations Board and the New York Department of Labor.

Read more about Jonathan WexlerEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Employment & Labor
  • Blog:
    Vedder Works
  • Organization:
    Vedder Price PC
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo