Under the NJLAD, as with the ADEA, a plaintiff must show that “(1) he belonged to a protected class; (2) the defendant failed to hire him; (3) he was qualified for the position in question; and (4) circumstances giving rise to an inference of discrimination accompanied the failure to hire him.” Landmesser v. Hazelton Area Sch. Dist., 574 Fed.Appx. 188, 189 (3d Cir. 2014); see Ebner v. STS Tire & Auto Ctr., Civ. No. 10-2241, 2011 WL 4020937, at *6 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2011) (“[T]he relevant legal principles governing the NJLAD and the ADEA are the same.”).
; Ebner v. STS Tire & Auto Ctr., No. 10-2241, 2011 WL 4020937, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2011) (“What [the plaintiff] actually alleges is a common law action for failure to hire, a cause of action not recognized by New Jersey courts.”);
The Court agrees. See Ebner v. STS Tire & Auto Ctr., No. 10-2241, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102006, at *12 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2011) (finding that the employer's decision not to offer the plaintiff "the assistant manager position because it 'made a business decision to utilize existing management employees at its Montclair location'" was a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its hiring decision). Accordingly, the burden shifts to Plaintiff to submit evidence to discredit this proffered reason.
See Sabatino v. St. Aloysius Parish, 288 N.J. Super. 233, 240 (App. Div. 1996); Ebner v. STS Tire & Auto Ctr., 2011 WL 4020937, *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 9, 2011). Accordingly, Defendants' motion will be granted as to Plaintiff's Pierce claim.