Woodward v. Emulex Corporation, 714 F.3d 632

Frank Woodward appeals a district court grant of summary judgment in an age discrimination suit against Emulex and two discovery orders.
Woodward, who joined Emulex in 2000, had a long-standing EMC client relationship yielding substantial sales; EMC was a major Emulex client.
From 2007 EMC revenues declined; Woodward alleges Emulex reduced EMC staff and failed to address issues, harming EMC-related profits.
Woodward alleged age-based disparagement and termination in 2009; Hoogenboom allegedly commented on re-energizing the EMC team, with ages ranging 49–59.
MCAD dismissed Woodward’s state complaint; he removed the case to federal court on diversity grounds and the district court granted summary judgment on all counts.
Woodward challenged discovery orders limiting interrogatory scope to 21 named employees and quashing certain deposition notices; the court affirmed these limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether discovery limits were proper	Woodward argues broader discovery was needed to prove pretext.	Emulex asserts limits were appropriate to avoid fishing expeditions and duplicative requests.	Discovery limits affirmed; not abuse of discretion.
Whether quashed depositions were proper	Woodward needed deposition testimony to support his claims.	The schedule pressures and last-minute notices justified quashing.	Deposition quash affirmed; no abuse of discretion.
Whether Woodward established a prima facie case or pretext under Massachusetts framework	Woodward asserts age discrimination and pretext for termination.	Emulex offers a legitimate market-shift rationale; Woodward cannot show pretext.	Court assumes prima facie; Emulex's rationale not shown pretext.
Whether Emulex's termination was pretextual based on comparative evidence	Younger employees were retained; disparities show pretext.	Comparators were not similarly situated; broader market context matters.	No sufficient showing of proper similarly situated comparators; no pretext established.
Whether Hoogenboom's comment constitutes direct evidence	Hoogenboom’s comment reveals age-based animus.	Comment refers to performance, not age; isolated remark not direct evidence.	Comment insufficient to prove discrimination; starved by context and precedent.

Dartmouth Review v. Dartmouth Coll., 889 F.2d 13 (1st Cir. 1989) (similarly situated standard for discrimination)
Educadores Puertorriqueños en Acción v. Hernández, 367 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2004) (overrules on other grounds; district court framework)
Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 825 N.E.2d 541 (Mass. 2005) (pretext analysis and isolated comments)
Lee v. President & Fellows of Harvard Coll., 806 N.E.2d 463 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (isolated comments insufficient for direct evidence)
McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (U.S. 1973) (prima facie case shifting burdens in discrimination cases)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1986) (summary judgment burden shifting)
Hodgens v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 144 F.3d 151 (1st Cir. 1998) (burden on nonmoving party to show genuine issue)
Ocean Spray Cranberries, Inc., 686 N.E.2d 1310 (Mass. 1997) (similarly situated standard in pretext analysis)
Webber v. Int'l Paper Co., 417 F.3d 229 (1st Cir. 2005) (business judgment respect in employment decisions)