BlogLine

Third Circuit shifts New Jersey anti-discrimination law post-Ames

3/17/26

By: Nicholas Franos

In Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield, the Third Circuit revived a white police officer’s suit of racial discrimination in hiring, reversing the district court’s grant of summary judgment and relying on the United States Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. This decision serves as further evidence of the emphasis the federal government and judiciary continue to place upon instances of what are often described as ‘reverse discrimination’ claims.

Factual background

Christopher Massey (“Plaintiff”) is a white male who served for decades in the Borough of Bergenfield’s (“Defendant’s”) Police Department, rising to the rank of Deputy Chief and acting as the Department’s Officer in Charge in mid-2019. Around this time, Defendant denied Plaintiff a promotion to the chief position in favor of Mustafa Rabboh, an Arab-Muslim male with the rank of Captain.

Third Circuit’s analysis

Applying the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination framework, the district court granted summary judgment pursuant to its application of the background circumstances rule, which requires a Title VII plaintiff who is not in the minority to show that he has been victimized by an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.

In 2025, however, the United States Supreme Court rejected the federal ‘background circumstances’ rule in Ames. Unanimously holding that the rule is not consistent with Title VII’s text or case law construing the statute, the Court mandated that the standard for proving disparate treatment under Title VII does not vary based on whether or not the plaintiff is a member of a majority group.

The question before the Third Circuit, therefore, was whether New Jersey’s background circumstances rule was still viable after Ames. Answering in the negative, the Circuit Court began by noting that New Jersey state courts had not had an opportunity to weigh in. So, the Court was left to perform the delicate task of predicting how the Supreme Court of New Jersey would interpret and apply the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (“NJLAD”) in the aftermath of Ames.

Predicting that the Supreme Court would look to federal law as a key source of interpretive authority, as it did when adopting the background circumstances rule, the Circuit Court predicted that the New Jersey Court would find the analysis in Ames compelling when interpreting their own anti-discrimination law. This followed from the determination that the pertinent text from Title VII and the NJLAD is identical, prohibiting discrimination against any person.

Key takeaways for employers

The rejection of the background circumstances rule means that all employees, regardless of majority or minority status, are subject to the same standards under Title VII and state anti-discrimination laws like the NJALD which mirror Title VII. In light of this continued trend focusing attention on cases of reverse discrimination, employers should review their anti-discrimination policies and training programs to ensure compliance with the updated legal standards, with an emphasis on ensuring consistent and equitable treatment for all employees.

For more information, please contact Nicholas Franos at nicholas.franos@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.