In a major shift for employment law, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has leveled the playing field for majority-group plaintiffs in discrimination lawsuits. In Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield, 169 F.4th 188 (3d Cir. 2026), the Third Circuit predicted that the New Jersey Supreme Court would officially abandon the state’s long-standing “Background Circumstances Rule” by eliminating this extra hurdle. The decision ensures that anti-discrimination protections apply equally to all employees, regardless of “majority” or “minority” status.
Background
The lawsuit arose when Christopher Massey (Massey), a white male and a decades-long veteran, serving as Deputy Chief and acting Officer in Charge for the Borough of Bergenfield Police Department, brought a failure-to-promote claim when he was passed over for a promotion to Chief of Police in favor of an Arab-Muslim male holding the lower rank of Captain.
Consequently, Massey filed suit against the Borough and five Councilmembers, alleging racial and religious discrimination in violation of the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), the Equal Protection Clause, and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.
District Court Ruling
The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey initially granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all of Massey’s claims. Relying on established New Jersey precedent, the District Court determined that Massey failed to satisfy the “Background Circumstances Rule.” This rule required majority-group plaintiffs to meet a heightened evidentiary burden and prove that their employer was the unusual employer that historically discriminated against the majority. Massey appealed.
Ames Ruling
While Massey’s appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court was called upon to resolve a split in the circuits and ruled unanimously in Ames v. Ohio Dep’t of Youth Servs., 605 U.S. 303 (2025), that Title VII’s text makes no distinction between majority and minority plaintiffs. As such, the Supreme Court ruled that there was no basis for imposing additional requirements on majority-group plaintiffs, and that the “Background Circumstances Rule” inherently violates Title VII’s basic principle to protect all individuals equally from discrimination.
Third Circuit
The Third Circuit reversed the District Court’s summary judgment on the NJLAD and § 1983 claims, remanding the case for trial. In doing so, the Third Circuit predicted that the New Jersey Supreme Court would do away with the “Background Circumstances Rule” to align with federal law. The Third Circuit noted that the statutory text of the NJLAD mirrors Title VII by protecting any person from discrimination, thus concluding that New Jersey would follow federal precedent.
Instead of the heightened rule, the court applied the standard McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework wherein a majority-group plaintiff needs only to show an inference of discrimination, the same standard that applies to minority-group plaintiffs.
Upon review of the record, the Third Circuit found substantial disputes of material fact. Massey provided strong direct and circumstantial evidence of bias, including race-related comments made by decision-makers and others, including that Massey “did not look like the people in town,” that it was important to have a “minority department head,” and that the other candidate was selected “because he’s a minority” to bring understanding to a diversified community. The Borough Administrator explicitly stated the decision was “all about race.”
While the defendants argued the promotion was a legitimate decision based on qualifications, interview performance, diversity goals, and long-term planning, the court ruled that it was a question for the jury to resolve whether these reasons were genuine or a pretext for discrimination.
Takeaways
The Massey decision effectively lowers the barrier for majority group plaintiffs to establish “reverse discrimination.” Consequently, organizations should anticipate an increase in claims from majority-group employees. Moving forward, employers should ensure that all employment decisions regarding both majority-group and minority-group employees are strictly based on legitimate, non-discriminatory, and well-documented reasons.