Publications — Lindabury, McCormick, Estabrook & Cooper, P.C. Firm News & Events

Health Law Alert: New Jersey Expands Practice Autonomy For Advanced Practice Nurses – Key Implications for Med Spas and Aesthetic Practices

Published on: April 6, 2026 | by Stephen A. Timoni and Kelsey Gorman

During the COVID-19 pandemic, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy issued an executive order which, among other things, temporarily suspended and waived the requirement that Advanced Practice Nurses (“APNs”) enter into a joint protocol agreement with a collaborating physician in order to prescribe medications and devices. The waiver was intended to allow APNs to practice with expanded autonomy to meet urgent health care demands during the pandemic. Prior to the end of his final term, Governor Murphy issued Executive Order 415, terminating many pandemic emergency declarations and associated waivers, including the waiver of the joint protocol requirement which was set to expire on February 16, 2026. In response, current Governor Mikie Sherrill issued Executive Order 13, extending the COVID-era waiver of joint protocol agreements for 45 days and acknowledging pending legislation, Senate Bill 2996.

Key Changes for APNs

New Jersey Senate Bill 2996 was introduced into the legislature on January 13, 2026 proposing to permanently eliminate practice restrictions that limited APNs’ ability to prescribe and administer medications and devices. In its initial form, Senate Bill 2996 authorized APNs who have completed 24 months or 2,400 hours of licensed, active, advanced nursing to practice without a joint protocol agreement. However, the bill that passed and was eventually signed into law by Governor Mikie Sherrill on March 30, 2026 is significantly different than the version initially proposed.

New Jersey Supreme Court Confirms that Undocumented Workers Are Protected Under New Jersey Wage Laws

Published on: March 23, 2026 | by Joshua L. Weiner

On March 19, 2026, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Lopez v. Marmic LLC, like the many other courts that have considered the question, ruled that undocumented workers are entitled to the minimum wage and overtime protections provided by the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law. Thus, if an employer hires an undocumented worker in violation of federal law, the employer is nonetheless still required to compensate that worker in a manner consistent with New Jersey State law for the work they perform, including payment of at least the State minimum wage and overtime. The Court in Lopez also took the opportunity to remind employers that it remains their burden to keep and maintain accurate employee wage and hour records, and that failure to do so creates a rebuttable presumption that the employee worked for the employer for the period of time and for the amount of wages alleged by the employee.

While the court’s opinion in Lopez did not break any new ground and simply applied well established case law to the facts before it, the decision underscores the importance of ensuring that all New Jersey employees, including undocumented workers, are paid in strict accordance with the State’s wage and hour laws. Employers should review their current employment policies and payroll practices to ensure that they remain compliant with New Jersey law.

Do You Have to Be Separated Before Filing for Divorce in New Jersey?

Published on: March 16, 2026 | by James McGlew, II

One of the most common misconceptions about divorce is the belief that spouses must live apart for a specific period of time before they file for divorce.

In New Jersey, physical separation is not required before filing for divorce. While separation can be relevant in certain cases, it is not required in order to begin the divorce process.

Separation Is Only One Possible Ground for Divorce

The Third Circuit May Have Just Eased the Way for Reverse-Discrimination Claims in New Jersey

Published on: March 12, 2026 | by Joshua L. Weiner and Gozde Celik

The Third Circuit has formally aligned itself with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision making it easier for majority-group employees (i.e., men, heterosexuals, Caucasians, etc.) to pursue so-called “reverse discrimination” claims. In a decision authored by newly appointed Judge Emil Bove, the court held that plaintiffs who are members of majority groups are not required to establish “background circumstances” demonstrating their employer was inclined to discriminate against majority groups.

Applying the Supreme Court’s reasoning in Ames, the court concluded that the language of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), like its federal counterpart, protects “any” individual from discrimination. The Third Circuit reasoned that employees who are not in the “minority” to satisfy a higher evidentiary standard would be inconsistent with that statutory language and with principles underlying federal anti-discrimination law. Because the NJLAD framework has historically tracked federal Title VII jurisprudence, the court treated Ames as controlling guidance when evaluating the state-law claim.

It remains to be seen whether New Jersey’s appellate courts will adopt the same approach, as they have not yet addressed the issue following Ames.

New Jersey Federal Court Transfers a Remote Employee’s Lawsuit to Employer’s Home Forum

Published on: March 9, 2026 | by Lisa Gingeleskie, Joshua L. Weiner and Ashlin Miller

On March 3, 2026, a federal judge in the District of New Jersey transferred an employment lawsuit to North Carolina, holding that the case should proceed in the state where the corporate decisions were made, rather than where the remote employee performed their work.

Background

In Papa v. IAT Insurance Group, Inc., a New Jersey resident worked remotely from her home as a senior instructional designer for a North Carolina-based insurance company. The remote employee filed suit against the company in the District Court of New Jersey, alleging that she was subject to discrimination and retaliation by her employer. The employer moved to transfer the case to the Eastern District of North Carolina, arguing that although the employee worked remotely from New Jersey and was present in New Jersey during many of the alleged discriminatory actions, the key employment decisions underlying her claims were made at the company’s headquarters in North Carolina.

When “Equal” Isn’t Fair – and When It Becomes a Lawsuit: Estate-Planning Red Flags for Business Owners

Published on: March 9, 2026 | by Elizabeth Candido Petite

Business owners spend years building something tangible: crews, equipment fleets, supplier relationships, customer goodwill, and a reputation that can’t be bought overnight. Yet when an owner becomes incapacitated or dies, the most expensive flight is often not with a competitor, it’s inside the family.

Trust and estate litigators see the same pattern repeatedly: the owner’s plan technically exists, but it contains “red flags” that practically invite a courtroom brawl. When those red flags aren’t addressed during life, they’re often resolved in a courtroom where the process is lengthy, emotional, and expensive.

For owners whose business is hands-on, asset-heavy, seasonal, and often family-involved, the risk is amplified. Below are the most common litigation triggers I have seen in my practice, along with planning moves that can keep your family, your crews, and your company out of chaos.

Can I File for Divorce in New Jersey If I Was Married Somewhere Else?

Published on: March 2, 2026 | by James McGlew, II

One of the most common concerns people raise when considering divorce is whether the location of their marriage limits where they can file for divorce. This question often arises for couples who married out of state, married abroad, or relocated years after their wedding.

This is an understandable concern that I often hear in my practice. Going through a divorce is an already uncertain experience for clients, and misinformation about jurisdiction can create unnecessary stress. Fortunately, New Jersey law is clear on this issue: where you were married usually does not determine where you may file for divorce.

What matters instead is whether the New Jersey court has legal authority over the case.

Estate Planning After Divorce: Revisit Your Beneficiary Designations or Your Estate Could Pay the Consequences

Published on: February 19, 2026 | by Elizabeth Engert Manzo and Meghan Lawlor

Many people direct the disposition of their bank accounts, investments, retirement accounts and life insurance upon their death by designating beneficiaries of those assets. When an asset passes by beneficiary designation, otherwise called a pay-on-death provision, it becomes a non-probate asset and therefore passes outside of a person’s probate estate.

In New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania, among other states, a divorce automatically revokes any provisions in a will which benefit a former spouse, unless the will expressly states otherwise. Similarly, New Jersey statute 3B:3-14 provides that a divorce revokes any revocable appointment directing the disposition of property – such as a beneficiary designation – to a former spouse unless the governing instrument, court order, or divorce agreement dividing marital assets expressly states otherwise.

This year, the New Jersey Supreme Court considered whether a decedent’s pay-on-death provision on his U.S. savings bonds survived his divorce and satisfied the terms of his divorce settlement agreement (“DSA”). The decedent, Michael Jones (“Michael”), bought Series EE U.S. savings bonds while married to Jeanine Jones (“Jeanine”) and named her as the pay-on-death beneficiary of the bonds. When Michael and Jeanine divorced in 2018, the DSA required Michael to pay Jeanine $200,000 over time and also stated that any marital asset not specifically listed in the DSA “belong[ed] to the party who ha[d] it currently in their possession.” The DSA did not explicitly mention the savings bonds.

Timely Mailing May Not Be Timely Filing – Change to U.S. Postal Service Rules

Published on: February 19, 2026 | by Anne Marie Robbins

On November 24, 2025, the U.S. Postal Service (“USPS”) finalized a rule regarding when and how postmarks are applied. See 39 C.F.R. § 111 (2025). It is important for taxpayers and their advisors to be aware of the change because it has an impact on proving that a document was filed. While the rule does not change how mail is processed, it does change how postmarks should be understood, especially when deadlines matter.

What Changed?

While postmarks have long been relied upon as evidence that a document was mailed on a certain date, the new rule makes clear that this assumption is not always accurate. In most cases, postmarks are applied by automated machines at regional processing facilities, and not at the local post office where a piece of mail is dropped off. As a result, the date printed on a postmark may reflect the date the piece was first processed—not the date it was actually placed in the mail or collected by the USPS.

FinCEN Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule – Effective March 1, 2026

Published on: February 18, 2026 | by Kelsey Gorman

The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN’) has postponed the compliance date for its “Residential Real Estate Reporting Rule” to March 1, 2026. The rule is designed to increase transparency in the U.S. residential real estate market and to combat money laundering. Starting March 1, 2026, real estate transactions that qualify as a “reportable transfer” will need to comply with FinCEN’s reporting requirements.

What is a “Reportable Transfer”?

A ‘”reportable transfer” occurs when all of the following criteria are met: