Deputy Chief Christopher Massey, a white male who had served the Bergenfield Police Department in New Jersey since 1995 and risen to Deputy Chief, had been acting as Officer In Charge since February 2019. Following his interview for the Chief of Police position, the Borough Administrator told Massey that the Council had “screwed over” Massey by promoting Captain Mustafa Rabboh instead. The Borough Administrator indicated that the decision was “all about race.”
Rabboh, described in the record as an “Arab” or “Palestinian” Muslim male, had been the subject of seven Internal Affairs complaints and received a four-day disciplinary suspension. At the August 2019 public vote, Councilmembers Amatorio, Deauna, Kornbluth, Marte, and Rivera all voted for Rabboh. At Rabboh’s swearing-in, Defendant Marte emphasized that “Bergenfield appointed the first female Police Chief in 2015, and now has appointed the first Muslim Police Chief, only the second in the State of New Jersey.”
When Massey sued under New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD), the district court granted summary judgment against him. The district court applied New Jersey’s “Background Circumstances Rule” — a judge-made doctrine requiring plaintiffs not in a minority group to show they were victimized by an “unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.”
But while Massey’s appeal was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, unanimously striking down the federal version of the Background Circumstances Rule. Title VII, the Court held, “draws no distinctions between majority-group plaintiffs and minority-group plaintiffs.” The Third Circuit faced a question of first impression: would New Jersey’s highest court follow Ames and abolish the state-law version of the Rule?
The Third Circuit predicted yes. The NJLAD’s text is identical to Title VII’s — prohibiting discrimination against “any” person. The Supreme Court of New Jersey has long looked to federal law as a “key source of interpretive authority” for the NJLAD. And the Rule’s vagueness had proven “problematic and unnecessary,” as the Third Circuit had observed when rejecting the federal version in 1999.
Stripping away the Rule, the court found Massey had ample evidence for trial on the discrimination claims. Defendants conceded they “considered Rabboh’s race and religion.” Defendant Rivera told Massey he didn’t “look like the people in the town.” Defendant Deauna testified that he believed Rabboh would be a better Chief, in part, because “he’s a minority.” The Borough Administrator indicated the decision was “all about race.” The Court reversed summary judgment on the NJLAD and § 1983 claims, though it affirmed dismissal of the § 1981 claim.
Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield, 2026 WL 631149 (3d Cir. Mar. 6, 2026) (No. 24-2761).