Back to Distribution C

C1: Demand Letter

Plaintiff's counsel initial demand from McAllister & Vega, LLP

McALLISTER & VEGA, LLP
Advocates for Working People

180 Broad Street, Suite 1200
Newark, New Jersey 07102
Tel: (973) 555-0142
Fax: (973) 555-0143

February 26, 2026

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL AND EMAIL
(rdominguez-park@dmclegal.com)

Rachel Dominguez-Park, Esq.
Dominguez-Park McCarthy LLP
One Gateway Center, Suite 2500
Newark, NJ 07102

Re: Jamal T. Washington v. NovaStream Logistics, LLC
Our File No.: 2026-JW-0087

Dear Ms. Dominguez-Park:

This firm represents Jamal T. Washington in connection with claims arising from his work as a delivery driver for NovaStream Logistics, LLC ("NovaStream"). We write to demand compensation for our client and to provide NovaStream with the opportunity to resolve this matter before we proceed with litigation.

Factual Background

Mr. Washington's Work for NovaStream

Mr. Washington began providing delivery services through NovaStream's platform in March 2025. Between March 2025 and September 2025, he completed approximately 2,840 deliveries, earning a customer rating of 4.97 out of 5.0 stars -- placing him among NovaStream's highest-performing drivers.

Throughout this period, Mr. Washington was classified by NovaStream as an "independent contractor" and was required to sign an Independent Contractor Agreement affirming that classification. However, the operational reality of his work relationship with NovaStream bore all the hallmarks of employment:

Control Over Performance: Mr. Washington was required to:

  • Complete a mandatory "Delivery Excellence" training program before beginning work
  • Follow routes generated by NovaStream's "RouteGenius" algorithm, with penalties for deviation (in the form of reduced efficiency ratings)
  • Maintain a customer rating of at least 4.5 stars or face suspension and termination
  • Wear "professional" attire as directed by NovaStream
  • Refrain from performing work for competing platforms during active NovaStream delivery blocks
  • Meet vehicle specifications dictated by NovaStream
  • Accept a maximum of three block cancellations per month without penalty to his priority status

Core Business Function: Mr. Washington performed the core function of NovaStream's business -- last-mile delivery. NovaStream does not manufacture products, operate retail stores, or provide any service other than connecting retailers with delivery capacity. Mr. Washington was NovaStream's business.

Economic Dependence: During his tenure, Mr. Washington derived approximately 85% of his income from NovaStream, working 35-45 hours per week on the platform. While NovaStream's contract permitted him to work for other platforms, the practical demands of maintaining his NovaStream rating and block priority left little time for other work.

Illusory Substitution Rights: Although Mr. Washington's contract purported to grant him the right to designate substitutes, when he attempted to exercise this right in July 2025 (due to a family emergency), his request was ignored. He received no response from NovaStream.

The September 15, 2025 Accident

On September 15, 2025, while completing deliveries in Irvington, New Jersey, Mr. Washington's vehicle was struck by another driver who ran a red light. Mr. Washington suffered a fractured wrist, cervical strain, and a concussion. He was transported to University Hospital in Newark, where he was treated and released.

Mr. Washington has been unable to perform delivery work since the accident. His injuries required surgery (wrist pinning) and extensive physical therapy. He continues to experience pain and limited range of motion. Medical expenses to date exceed $47,000.

When Mr. Washington sought workers' compensation benefits from NovaStream, he was told that as an "independent contractor," he was not covered by NovaStream's workers' compensation insurance. His claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Proceeding

In October 2025, Mr. Washington filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits with the New Jersey Division of Workers' Compensation. That proceeding is ongoing. Worker classification for workers' compensation purposes is determined under the twelve-factor hybrid test endorsed in Estate of Kotsovska ex rel. Kotsovska v. Liebman, 221 N.J. 568, 594–96 (2015) (adopting the Pukowsky v. Caruso, 312 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 1998), framework as applied in D'Annunzio Bros. v. N.J. Dep't of Labor, 192 N.J. 114 (2007)), rather than the ABC Test discussed below. That hybrid test integrates common-law right-to-control factors with economic-realities factors — including who furnishes equipment, method of payment, whether the work is integral to the employer's business, and the parties' economic relationship — into a single multi-factor inquiry. Under that test, NovaStream's extensive control over Mr. Washington's work — including route mandates, performance monitoring, training requirements, and deactivation authority — combined with Mr. Washington's economic dependence and the integral nature of delivery work to NovaStream's business, establishes an employment relationship. A determination of employee status in that proceeding would establish Mr. Washington's right to benefits and would collaterally estop NovaStream from asserting independent contractor status in subsequent proceedings.

However, Mr. Washington's claims are not limited to workers' compensation. As explained below, he also has claims for wage theft and misclassification under New Jersey's wage and hour laws.

Legal Analysis

The ABC Test

New Jersey applies the "ABC Test" to determine worker classification for purposes of the Wage Payment Law, the Wage and Hour Law, and unemployment/disability insurance. Under this test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the putative employer proves all three of the following:

(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; and

(B) Such service is either outside the usual course of the business for which such service is performed, or that such service is performed outside of all the places of business of the enterprise for which such service is performed; and

(C) Such individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business.

N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6); see Hargrove v. Sleepy's, LLC, 220 N.J. 289, 316 (2015) (adopting ABC Test for wage and hour claims); East Bay Drywall, LLC v. Dep't of Labor & Workforce Dev., 251 N.J. 477 (2022) (applying ABC Test).

NovaStream cannot satisfy any prong of this test.

Prong A: Control

As detailed above, NovaStream exercised extensive control over Mr. Washington's work. The company dictated routes (through RouteGenius), enforced performance standards (through the ratings system), imposed discipline (through priority reduction and deactivation), required training, set appearance standards, and prohibited contemporaneous work for competitors. NovaStream attempts to characterize these controls as mere "suggestions" or "expectations," but courts examine the practical reality of the relationship. See Hargrove, 220 N.J. at 306 (looking beyond contractual language to actual practice).

Prong B: Usual Course of Business

This prong is dispositive. NovaStream's entire business is delivery logistics. Mr. Washington performed deliveries. There is no colorable argument that delivery services are "outside the usual course" of a delivery company's business.

NovaStream may attempt to characterize itself as a "technology platform" rather than a delivery company. This characterization fails. NovaStream contracts with retailers to deliver packages. It charges retailers for delivery services. It advertises delivery services to retailers. The fact that NovaStream uses an app to dispatch drivers does not transform it into a technology company any more than a taxi company using a dispatch radio becomes a telecommunications company. Cf. East Bay Drywall, 251 N.J. at 498 (rejecting attempt to characterize drywall installers as outside the usual course of a drywall company's business).

Prong C: Independently Established Business

Mr. Washington was not engaged in an "independently established" delivery business. He did not market his services to other clients. He did not maintain a business entity, business insurance, or business infrastructure. He did not hire employees or subcontractors. He was economically dependent on NovaStream for the vast majority of his income. The fact that NovaStream's contract required him to represent that he operated an independent business does not make it so.

Wage Payment Law Violations

As an employee, Mr. Washington was entitled to the protections of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 et seq. NovaStream violated the Wage Payment Law by:

  1. Failing to pay wages when due. Employees must be paid at least twice per month. N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.2. NovaStream paid Mr. Washington weekly based on "completed deliveries," but improperly reduced his pay for failed deliveries that were not his fault (incorrect addresses, customer unavailability). These "deductions" were unauthorized and constitute wage theft.
  2. Improper deductions. NovaStream deducted costs from Mr. Washington's pay without proper written authorization as required by N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4. See also N.J.A.C. 12:55-2.1.
  3. Failure to provide accurate wage statements. NovaStream's payment records did not itemize deductions or provide the information required by the Wage Payment Law.

Wage and Hour Law Violations

As an employee, Mr. Washington was also entitled to minimum wage and overtime protections under the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq.

Based on our analysis of Mr. Washington's delivery records and payment history, during periods of high delivery volume, his effective hourly rate -- after accounting for vehicle expenses, tolls, and unpaid wait time -- fell below New Jersey's minimum wage. Additionally, during weeks when Mr. Washington worked more than 40 hours, he was not paid overtime premiums.

Damages

Based on our preliminary calculations, Mr. Washington's damages include:

Category Amount
Unpaid wages (minimum wage differential) $8,400.00
Unpaid overtime $4,200.00
Improper deductions $1,850.00
Liquidated damages (Wage Payment Law) $14,450.00
Liquidated damages (Wage and Hour Law) $12,600.00
Medical expenses (accident-related) $47,320.00
Lost earnings (Sept. 2025 - present) $28,500.00
Pain and suffering TBD
Subtotal (excluding pain/suffering) $117,320.00

This figure does not include attorneys' fees, which are recoverable under both the Wage Payment Law and the Wage and Hour Law. See N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.10; N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.

Demand

On behalf of Mr. Washington, we demand that NovaStream:

  1. Pay Mr. Washington $175,000 in full satisfaction of all wage claims, medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering;
  2. Provide a neutral reference for Mr. Washington;
  3. Not contest Mr. Washington's pending workers' compensation claim; and
  4. Acknowledge, for purposes of settlement only, that Mr. Washington was misclassified.

This demand will remain open for twenty-one (21) days from the date of this letter. If NovaStream does not respond substantively within that period, we will proceed with litigation.

We are prepared to file a complaint in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Essex County, asserting claims under the Wage Payment Law, Wage and Hour Law, and common law. We also reserve the right to seek class or collective action certification on behalf of similarly situated NovaStream drivers, depending on the outcome of our investigation into NovaStream's company-wide classification practices.

Document Preservation

This letter constitutes notice that litigation is reasonably anticipated. NovaStream is obligated to preserve all documents and electronically stored information potentially relevant to Mr. Washington's claims, including but not limited to:

  • All agreements between NovaStream and its drivers
  • All communications regarding Mr. Washington
  • All communications regarding driver classification
  • Payroll and payment records for Mr. Washington and other drivers
  • RouteGenius algorithm documentation
  • Driver ratings data
  • Deactivation records
  • Training materials
  • Customer complaints and responses
  • Internal communications regarding the September 15, 2025 accident

Failure to preserve relevant evidence may result in spoliation sanctions.

Conclusion

NovaStream built its business on the labor of workers like Jamal Washington while denying them the basic protections that New Jersey law provides to employees. When one of its most dedicated drivers was injured on the job, NovaStream disclaimed any responsibility. This is precisely the harm that New Jersey's worker classification laws are designed to prevent.

We hope NovaStream will recognize the strength of Mr. Washington's claims and the exposure it faces -- both in this individual case and in potential collective action -- and will work with us to reach a fair resolution.

Please direct all further communications to my attention.

Very truly yours,

McALLISTER & VEGA, LLP

/s/ Terrence J. McAllister

Terrence J. McAllister, Esq.
Partner

cc: Jamal T. Washington (via email)

This letter is a confidential settlement communication pursuant to N.J.R.E. 408 and is inadmissible to prove liability.