## Facts

- Burt N. Sempier joined Johnson & Higgins (J & H) in 1968, became Treasurer in 1971, and was elected Chief Financial Officer (CFO) in 1984, reporting to the board.
- J & H’s record of Sempier’s performance was disputed: Sempier stated he was not told his performance was deficient; the chairman was generally satisfied; other directors asserted he performed below expectations.
- An outside audit of the finance department criticized operations, and a director sought Sempier’s replacement.
- J & H replaced Sempier, a long-term employee within the ADEA-protected age group, with a substantially younger successor.
- J & H asserted nondiscriminatory reasons for the termination, including that Sempier was not sufficiently aggressive as CFO and that the firm needed different financial leadership.
- Sempier disputed the asserted reasons and offered circumstantial age-related evidence supporting an inference of discrimination.
- Discovery was contentious: Sempier served interrogatories and document requests, and J & H failed to respond to multiple demands.
- After motions to compel and conflicting rulings, the magistrate judge relieved J & H from answering earlier interrogatories, required a third set, then—after further noncompliance—denied a motion to compel and substituted a court-drafted “Bill of Particulars” for Sempier’s interrogatories; the district court affirmed.
- The district court granted summary judgment for J & H on the ADEA claim and dismissed pendent state-law claims.

## Issues

1. Whether summary judgment was improper because a reasonable jury could find J & H’s stated reasons for discharging Sempier were pretext for age discrimination under the ADEA.
2. Whether the district court abused its discretion in limiting discovery by substituting a court-drafted “Bill of Particulars” for party-propounded interrogatories and denying motions to compel.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed summary judgment on the ADEA claim because the record contained a genuine dispute of material fact on pretext.
- The court held the district court abused its discretion in discovery management by substituting a “Bill of Particulars” for interrogatories and unduly restricting discovery.
- The court reversed the dismissal of the pendent state-law claims and remanded for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADEA’s McDonnell Douglas framework, after an employer articulates a legitimate reason, the plaintiff may survive summary judgment by producing evidence from which a factfinder could reasonably disbelieve the proffered reasons or conclude age discrimination was more likely than not a motivating or determinative cause.
- At the Rule 56 stage, courts must draw reasonable inferences for the nonmovant and may not weigh evidence or make credibility determinations; conflicting evidence about performance and reasons for discharge typically presents a jury question.
- District courts have broad discretion over discovery, but abuse occurs when discovery is unduly restricted in a way that prejudices a party’s ability to litigate material issues, including opposing summary judgment.
- The Federal Rules authorize standard discovery tools (including interrogatories); a court may not replace them with a judicially created substitute that materially narrows a party’s permissible discovery.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that disputed evidence about Sempier’s performance and the circumstances of his replacement could support a finding of pretext under the ADEA, making summary judgment improper, and it required renewed proceedings after concluding that the district court’s substitution of a “Bill of Particulars” for interrogatories improperly restricted discovery.


Sempier v. Johnson & Higgins, 45 F.3d 724 (3d Cir. 1995)