## Facts

- Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc. implemented a mid-1980s reduction in force (RIF) that terminated or demoted roughly 1,100–1,200 employees.
- Richard Sperling and similarly situated former employees age 40 and older sued under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) as a collective action.
- Approximately 476 individuals opted into the action as party plaintiffs.
- After extensive discovery, the case proceeded on individual disparate-treatment claims; a pattern-or-practice theory was later dismissed on summary judgment.
- Hoffmann-La Roche sought partial summary judgment to dismiss the individual disparate-treatment claims of 60 opt-in plaintiffs, arguing their theories relied on salary and pension/benefit status rather than age.
- Hoffmann-La Roche also filed a motion in limine seeking pretrial exclusion of broad categories of evidence related to RIF criteria and alleged age-related motives.

## Issues

1. Whether, after Hazen Paper, individual ADEA disparate-treatment claims fail as a matter of law when plaintiffs rely on salary, seniority, or pension/benefit status as proof of discrimination.
2. Whether plaintiffs’ contention-interrogatory responses limited them to non-actionable “cost” theories and barred reliance on an age-proxy theory or other evidence of discriminatory intent.
3. Whether categories of evidence concerning RIF selection processes and alleged discriminatory motives should be excluded before trial.

## Decision

- The court denied Hoffmann-La Roche’s motion for partial summary judgment against the 60 plaintiffs’ individual disparate-treatment claims.
- The court held that Hazen Paper did not foreclose claims where ostensibly neutral factors (e.g., salary or benefits) were allegedly selected as a proxy for age.
- The court declined to treat contention-interrogatory responses as binding judicial admissions that fixed plaintiffs’ theories and found no unfair prejudice to the defense.
- The court denied the motion in limine as premature, leaving evidentiary objections to be resolved in the trial context.

## Legal Principles

- Under the ADEA, employment decisions based on factors analytically distinct from age (such as salary, seniority, or pension status) are not automatically unlawful, but may support liability if intentionally used as a surrogate for age.
- A plaintiff may proceed on a theory that an employer selected a facially neutral criterion precisely because of its close correlation with age, permitting an inference of age-based intent.
- Contention-interrogatory answers are discovery responses and generally are not conclusive judicial admissions; supplementation and clarification may be permitted absent unfair prejudice.
- Summary judgment is improper where evidence, viewed in the nonmovant’s favor, could allow a reasonable jury to infer discriminatory motive in fact-dependent disparate-treatment claims.
- Broad, categorical evidentiary exclusions are disfavored before trial when admissibility depends on purpose, foundation, and potential prejudice in context.

## Conclusion

The court allowed 60 individual ADEA disparate-treatment claims arising from a large RIF to proceed, holding that Hazen Paper does not bar proof that salary or benefit-related criteria were used as an age proxy, that contention-interrogatory responses did not conclusively limit plaintiffs’ theories, and that broad evidentiary exclusions were better addressed at trial.


Sperling v. Hoffmann-La Roche, Inc., 924 F. Supp. 1396 (D.N.J. 1996)