SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY
LAW DIVISION - ESSEX COUNTY

---

JAMAL T. WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff,

v.

NOVASTREAM LOGISTICS, LLC,
Defendant.

---

Docket No.: _______________

Civil Action

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

---

Plaintiff Jamal T. Washington ("Plaintiff" or "Mr. Washington"), by and through his attorneys, McAllister & Vega, LLP, hereby files this Complaint against Defendant NovaStream Logistics, LLC ("Defendant" or "NovaStream"), and alleges as follows:

Nature of the Action

1. This is an action for damages arising from Defendant's willful misclassification of Plaintiff as an "independent contractor" when, under New Jersey law, Plaintiff was an employee entitled to wage protections, workers' compensation coverage, and other benefits.

2. Plaintiff seeks recovery of unpaid wages, liquidated damages, compensatory damages for injuries sustained on the job, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Parties

3. Plaintiff Jamal T. Washington is an adult individual residing in Newark, Essex County, New Jersey.

4. Defendant NovaStream Logistics, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability company with its principal place of business at 85 Edison Place, Newark, New Jersey 07102. NovaStream may be served through its registered agent or any officer, including its CEO, Priya Sharma.

Jurisdiction and Venue

5. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to N.J.S.A. 2A:13-1.1 and the New Jersey Constitution, Art. VI, Section 3.

6. Venue is proper in Essex County pursuant to R. 4:3-2 because Defendant's principal place of business is located in Essex County and the events giving rise to this action occurred in Essex County.

Factual Allegations

NovaStream's Business

7. NovaStream is a logistics company that provides "last-mile" delivery services to e-commerce retailers throughout northern New Jersey.

8. NovaStream's entire business consists of delivering packages from retailers to end customers. NovaStream does not manufacture products, operate retail stores, or provide any services other than delivery logistics.

9. NovaStream uses a mobile application (the "NovaStream Driver App") to connect delivery drivers with available delivery assignments ("Blocks") and to manage all aspects of the delivery process.

10. NovaStream derives its revenue from fees charged to retailers for delivery services. NovaStream's drivers perform the actual deliveries that generate this revenue.

Plaintiff's Work for NovaStream

11. Plaintiff began providing delivery services through NovaStream's platform on or about March 15, 2025.

12. From March 2025 through September 2025, Plaintiff completed approximately 2,843 deliveries for NovaStream, earning a customer rating of 4.97 out of 5.0 stars.

13. Plaintiff worked approximately 35-45 hours per week for NovaStream and derived approximately 85% of his income from NovaStream during his tenure.

14. At all relevant times, NovaStream classified Plaintiff as an "independent contractor" and required Plaintiff to sign an "Independent Contractor Agreement" affirming that classification.

NovaStream's Control Over Plaintiff's Work

15. Despite classifying Plaintiff as an independent contractor, NovaStream exercised extensive control over Plaintiff's work, including but not limited to:

a. Requiring Plaintiff to complete a mandatory training program before beginning work;

b. Requiring Plaintiff to follow delivery routes generated by NovaStream's "RouteGenius" algorithm, with penalties for deviation;

c. Requiring Plaintiff to maintain a customer rating of at least 4.5 stars or face suspension and termination;

d. Requiring Plaintiff to wear "professional" attire while making deliveries;

e. Prohibiting Plaintiff from performing work for competing platforms during active NovaStream delivery blocks;

f. Requiring Plaintiff's vehicle to meet specifications dictated by NovaStream;

g. Penalizing Plaintiff for cancelling more than three delivery blocks per month;

h. Monitoring Plaintiff's location and delivery progress through the NovaStream App; and

i. Deactivating drivers who failed to meet NovaStream's performance standards.

16. NovaStream's Independent Contractor Agreement purported to grant Plaintiff the right to designate substitutes to perform deliveries on his behalf. However, when Plaintiff attempted to exercise this right in July 2025, NovaStream failed to respond to his request, rendering the right illusory.

17. NovaStream internally acknowledged that its characterization of drivers as having "autonomy" was inconsistent with its actual operational practices. On information and belief, NovaStream's management instructed employees to maintain the appearance of driver autonomy while practically controlling driver behavior through algorithmic management and performance penalties.

The September 15, 2025 Accident

18. On September 15, 2025, at approximately 2:47 PM, while completing deliveries for NovaStream in Irvington, New Jersey, Plaintiff's vehicle was struck by another driver who ran a red light.

19. Plaintiff was actively engaged in performing services for NovaStream at the time of the accident, having checked in for a delivery Block and having completed multiple deliveries prior to the collision.

20. As a result of the accident, Plaintiff suffered serious injuries including a fractured wrist requiring surgical intervention, cervical strain, and a concussion.

21. Plaintiff's medical expenses to date exceed $47,000.

22. Plaintiff has been unable to work since the accident due to his injuries.

NovaStream's Denial of Responsibility

23. Following the accident, Plaintiff sought workers' compensation benefits from NovaStream.

24. NovaStream denied Plaintiff's claim on the grounds that Plaintiff was an "independent contractor" and therefore not covered by NovaStream's workers' compensation insurance.

25. In October 2025, Plaintiff filed a petition for workers' compensation benefits with the New Jersey Division of Workers' Compensation. That proceeding is currently pending.

26. Additionally, NovaStream deducted $225.25 from Plaintiff's final payment as "package value recovery" for packages damaged in the accident -- an accident that was not Plaintiff's fault.

Plaintiff's Employee Status Under New Jersey Law

A. Wage and Hour Classification: The ABC Test

27. Under New Jersey law, worker classification for purposes of the Wage Payment Law, Wage and Hour Law, and unemployment/disability insurance is determined by the "ABC Test" codified at N.J.S.A. 43:21-19(i)(6).

28. Under the ABC Test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the putative employer demonstrates all three of the following: (A) the worker is free from control or direction both under contract and in fact; (B) the work is outside the usual course of the employer's business or outside all places of business; and (C) the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade.

29. NovaStream cannot satisfy any prong of the ABC Test with respect to Plaintiff.

30. As to Prong A, NovaStream exercised extensive control over Plaintiff's work as detailed in paragraphs 15-17 above.

31. As to Prong B, Plaintiff performed delivery services for a company whose sole business is providing delivery services. Delivery is the "usual course" of NovaStream's business by any reasonable definition.

32. As to Prong C, Plaintiff was not engaged in an independently established delivery business. Plaintiff did not market delivery services to other clients, did not maintain a business entity, and was economically dependent on NovaStream for the majority of his income.

B. Workers' Compensation Classification: The Twelve-Factor Pukowsky–D'Annunzio Hybrid Test

33. For purposes of the Workers' Compensation Act, N.J.S.A. 34:15-1 et seq., the New Jersey Supreme Court has endorsed a twelve-factor hybrid test integrating elements of the common-law right-to-control test with economic-realities factors from the nature-of-the-work test. See Estate of Kotsovska ex rel. Kotsovska v. Liebman, 221 N.J. 568, 594–96 (2015) (adopting the framework of Pukowsky v. Caruso, 312 N.J. Super. 171 (App. Div. 1998), as applied in D'Annunzio Bros. v. N.J. Dep't of Labor, 192 N.J. 114 (2007)). The Court cautioned that "exclusive reliance on a traditional right-to-control test" is insufficient. Id. at 593–94.

34. The twelve Pukowsky factors include, among others: (1) the employer's right to control the means and manner of performance; (4) who furnishes equipment and workplace; (5) the length of time the individual has worked; (6) method of payment; (7) manner of termination; (9) whether the work is an integral part of the employer's business; and (12) the intention of the parties. Id. at 594–95.

35. As to right-to-control factors, and as detailed in paragraphs 15-17, NovaStream possessed and exercised extensive control over Plaintiff's work, including dictating routes, imposing performance metrics, requiring training, setting appearance standards, and monitoring Plaintiff's location and progress in real time. NovaStream retained unilateral deactivation authority — the functional equivalent of termination at will.

36. As to economic-realities factors, Plaintiff performed the core function of NovaStream's business — last-mile delivery — and derived approximately 85% of his income from NovaStream. See Kotsovska, 221 N.J. at 590–91. Plaintiff was economically dependent on NovaStream and his work was integral to NovaStream's operations. Plaintiff used his own vehicle but was required to meet NovaStream's vehicle specifications, and NovaStream furnished the App platform, route assignments, and customer relationships.

37. The contractual recitation that Plaintiff was an "independent contractor" is entitled to little weight because the Pukowsky factors examine the actual working relationship, not the parties' labels. See Kotsovska, 221 N.J. at 595 (factor 12 — intention of the parties — is one factor among twelve, not dispositive).

38. Under either the ABC Test applicable to wage and hour claims or the twelve-factor hybrid test applicable to workers' compensation, Plaintiff was an employee of NovaStream.

Wage Payment Law Violations

39. As an employee, Plaintiff was entitled to the protections of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 et seq.

40. NovaStream violated the Wage Payment Law by making unauthorized deductions from Plaintiff's wages, including:

a. Deductions for "failed deliveries" that were not Plaintiff's fault (e.g., incorrect addresses provided by retailers, customers not available);

b. Deductions for "route deviation" when Plaintiff deviated from NovaStream's algorithmic routes to avoid traffic or road hazards;

c. Deductions for "block completion penalties" when circumstances prevented timely completion; and

d. Deduction of $225.25 for package damage resulting from an accident caused by a third party.

41. These deductions were not authorized in writing as required by N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.4 and were not for the exclusive benefit of Plaintiff.

42. NovaStream further violated the Wage Payment Law by failing to provide Plaintiff with accurate wage statements itemizing all deductions.

Wage and Hour Law Violations

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

44. When Plaintiff's actual time commitment (including vehicle preparation, loading, and return-to-facility time) and unreimbursed business expenses (fuel, vehicle maintenance, insurance, tolls) are properly accounted for, Plaintiff's effective hourly rate frequently fell below New Jersey's minimum wage.

45. During weeks when Plaintiff worked more than 40 hours, NovaStream failed to pay overtime premiums as required by N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a4.

First Cause of Action

Violation of New Jersey Wage Payment Law
N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.1 et seq.

46. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 45 as if fully set forth herein.

47. Plaintiff was an employee of NovaStream within the meaning of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

48. NovaStream violated the Wage Payment Law by making unauthorized deductions from Plaintiff's wages.

49. NovaStream further violated the Wage Payment Law by failing to provide accurate wage statements.

50. As a result of NovaStream's violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all unpaid wages, plus liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. N.J.S.A. 34:11-4.10.

Second Cause of Action

Violation of New Jersey Wage and Hour Law
N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a et seq.

51. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 50 as if fully set forth herein.

52. Plaintiff was an employee of NovaStream within the meaning of the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law.

53. NovaStream violated the Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay Plaintiff the applicable minimum wage when Plaintiff's actual compensation, after accounting for all time worked and unreimbursed expenses, fell below the statutory minimum.

54. NovaStream further violated the Wage and Hour Law by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime premiums for hours worked in excess of 40 per week.

55. As a result of NovaStream's violations, Plaintiff is entitled to recover all unpaid wages, plus liquidated damages in an amount equal to the unpaid wages, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. N.J.S.A. 34:11-56a25.

Third Cause of Action

Negligence / Respondeat Superior

56. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 55 as if fully set forth herein.

57. Under the twelve-factor Pukowsky–D'Annunzio hybrid test applicable to workers' compensation classification, Estate of Kotsovska ex rel. Kotsovska v. Liebman, 221 N.J. 568, 594–96 (2015), Plaintiff was an employee of NovaStream acting within the scope of his employment at the time of the September 15, 2025 accident.

58. As set forth in paragraphs 33-37, the Pukowsky factors weigh decisively in favor of employment status: NovaStream controlled the manner and means of Plaintiff's work, Plaintiff's delivery services were integral to NovaStream's regular business operations, and Plaintiff was economically dependent on NovaStream.

59. NovaStream owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care to maintain a safe working environment, including providing workers' compensation coverage for workplace injuries.

60. NovaStream breached this duty by failing to provide workers' compensation coverage and by denying responsibility for Plaintiff's workplace injuries.

61. As a direct and proximate result of NovaStream's breach, Plaintiff has suffered and continues to suffer damages including medical expenses, lost wages, pain and suffering, and emotional distress.

Fourth Cause of Action

Unjust Enrichment

62. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 61 as if fully set forth herein.

63. NovaStream was unjustly enriched by misclassifying Plaintiff as an independent contractor, thereby avoiding its obligations to pay employer-side payroll taxes, workers' compensation premiums, unemployment insurance contributions, and employee benefits.

64. NovaStream was further unjustly enriched by the $225.25 deducted from Plaintiff's wages for package damage that was not Plaintiff's fault.

65. It would be inequitable for NovaStream to retain these benefits without compensating Plaintiff.

Prayer for Relief

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and against Defendant as follows:

A. Awarding Plaintiff all unpaid wages, including minimum wage differentials and overtime premiums;

B. Awarding Plaintiff liquidated damages under the Wage Payment Law and Wage and Hour Law;

C. Awarding Plaintiff compensatory damages for his injuries, including medical expenses, lost wages, and pain and suffering;

D. Awarding Plaintiff restitution for the $225.25 improperly deducted from his wages;

E. Awarding Plaintiff prejudgment and postjudgment interest;

F. Awarding Plaintiff reasonable attorneys' fees and costs;

G. Awarding such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Jury Demand

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

---

Dated: February 28, 2026

McALLISTER & VEGA, LLP

---

Certification of Compliance with R. 1:38-7(c)

I certify that confidential personal identifiers have been redacted from documents now submitted to the court, and will be redacted from all documents submitted in the future in accordance with R. 1:38-7(b).

---

Designation of Trial Counsel

Pursuant to R. 4:25-4, Terrence J. McAllister is hereby designated as trial counsel for Plaintiff.