Court Ruling Removes Higher Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently ruled that “reverse discrimination” claims under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination (NJLAD) aren’t subject to a heightened “background circumstances” standard.

Reverse discrimination in the workplace generally refers to the unfair and unlawful treatment of members of groups traditionally in the majority (e.g., white individuals, men) based on their race, gender or other protected characteristics. It occurs when job-related decisions (e.g., hiring, compensation, promotions) intentionally favor individuals with minority characteristics at the expense of those in the majority.

Prior to the Third Circuit’s March 6 decision in the case Massey v. Borough of Bergenfield, for reverse discrimination cases under the NJLAD, plaintiffs who are members of traditionally advantaged groups had to satisfy the “background circumstances” requirement as part of their prima facie case. More simply, a plaintiff who isn’t in the minority must show they have “been victimized by an unusual employer who discriminates against the majority.” The existing standard was derived from the decision in the 1990 case Erickson v. Marsh & McLennan Co.

In the case before the Third Circuit, Christopher Massey, a white deputy police chief in the New Jersey borough, alleged he was discriminated against when he did not receive an anticipated promotion in 2019. Court documents showed Massey had been employed with the department since 1995 and held leadership positions such as deputy chief and acting officer-in-charge. When the Bergenfield council considered candidates for the police chief position, they selected Mustafa Rabboh, an Arab Muslim officer who had joined the department in 2003 and held the rank of captain.

A lower court in September 2024 dismissed Massey’s lawsuit, using the higher burden of proof.

In presiding over the Massey case, the Third Circuit concluded that all employees who lodge discrimination claims must meet the same burden of proof, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group. The ruling allows the claim to proceed without additional hurdles.

Circuit Judge Emil Bove, representing the three-judge panel, wrote in the 35-page opinion letter, “[The] defendants offered a ‘bagful’ of justifications for the promotion decision. Their bag is subject to numerous ‘weaknesses, implausibilities, inconsistencies, incoherencies [and] contradictions in the employer’s proffered legitimate reasons.’ For each type of justification, [the] plaintiff pointed to evidence that would permit a factfinder to ‘reasonably … disbelieve the employer’s articulated legitimate reasons.’ Therefore, [the] plaintiff met his burden of establishing pretext.”

The ruling aligns with the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 5, 2025, unanimous decision in the case Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which made it easier for workers to file reverse discrimination lawsuits against their employer. Central to that case was the legal question: Do members of a “majority group” have equal protection under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and/or need to meet a higher standard in cases involving related discrimination?

Title VII prohibits unfair treatment (inside and outside of work-related contexts) of individuals based on their race, religion, national origin and sex — including sexual orientation. Within work contexts, this could include alleged discrimination for decisions around hiring/firing, promotions/demotions, base salaries, merit increases, bonus allocation, benefits programs and more. While primarily applied historically to address the biased treatment of individuals representing various minority classes, Title VII itself does not mention the terms “minority” or “majority,” let alone how it may be applied to such groups.

Editor’s Note: Additional Content

For more information and resources related to this article, see the pages below, which offer quick access to all WorldatWork content on these topics:

• Career Growth
• Equitable and Diverse Workplaces