distinguished from Keller’s case. , . The Third Circuit came to the same conclusion in Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (3d Cir.2013). In Hart, EA faced a materially identical challenge under New Jersey right-of-publicity law, brought by former . Rutgers quarterback Ryan Hart. See id. at 163 n. 28 (“Keller is simply [Hart] incarnated in California.”). Though the Third Circuit was tasked with interpreting New Jersey law, the court looked to the transformative use test developed in California. See id. at 158 n. 23 (noting that the right-of-publicity laws are “strikingly similar ... and protect similar interests” in New Jersey and California, and that “consequently [there is] no issue in applying balancing tests developed in California to New Jersey”); see also id. at 165 (<HOLDING>). Applying the test, the court held that “the
holding that mcdonnell douglas framework which is used in title vii cases applies to ada cases when only circumstantial evidence of discrimination is offered recognizing pasularrobinette as the proper framework for section 105c claims holding that the transformative use test is the proper analytical framework to apply to cases such as the one at bar holding that the mcdonnell douglas framework applies equally to ada and rehabilitation act cases holding that the mixedmotive framework does not apply to retaliation cases under title vii