03-18-2026
Christopher Massey, a was a police officer for the Borough of Bergenfield’s Police Department (BPD). He rose to the rank of Deputy Chief. Massey applied for a promotion to Chief, but the position went to Mustafa Rabboh, an Arab-Muslim male with the rank of Captain. The city council and mayor contend that their decision to promote Rabboh was based on non-discriminatory reasons, including qualifications, interview performance, and strategic planning. However, public officials commented on diversity several times during Rabboh’s swearing-in ceremony. They mentioned Rabboh’s understanding of “the diversified community” and noted that he was the “first Muslim Police Chief.”
Massey sued the BPD for racial and religious discrimination under state and federal law. New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) includes a “Background Circumstances Rule.” Under this rule, a white plaintiff must show that he has been “victimized by an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” Since the filing of Massey’s appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected the Background Circumstances Rule for Title VII litigation. New Jersey’s highest court has not yet addressed whether this rule will continue to apply in state anti-discrimination cases. However, the Third Circuit predicted that New Jersey’s Supreme Court would conclude that the Background Circumstances Rule similarly will not apply to NJLAD claims. NJLAD’s language is identical to the relevant language under Title VII: Both statutes protect “any” individuals experiencing discrimination and the “language applies regardless of supposed membership in a majority or minority group.” Massey will be able to proceed with his claims.
Takeaways: The Third Circuit’s decision suggests that state courts will set aside their background circumstances rules and hold that white individuals suing for discrimination have the same evidentiary burden as all other plaintiffs under anti-discrimination statutes.