Van Leight, the review's worldwide ad sales director, said he didn't even know Bobrick's age when he terminated the contract.

"As I recall, his contract had a cancellation clause which was exercised. That's all," he said.

He said both Quinn and Bobrick were given the chance to apply to work for the review full-time, but "neither of them made a presentation for a job," he said. "Essentially, they didn't progress in the interview process."

Bobrick refused to say whether he had applied for the full-time position.

Although Kaplan and Bobrick refused to comment on damages, court documents indicate Bobrick is seeking $450,000 for legal costs, emotional distress and harm done to his reputation and earning capacity. The suit also claims the University didn't pay Bobrick commissions after he was dismissed in March 1993, in violation of his contract.

The burden of proof is on Bobrick to show that the termination was not performance-based, but rather a case of age discrimination, said Mark D. Stern, another attorney representing Bobrick.

Stern said a trial date is expected to be set in March 1997, but Kaplan said such cases are frequently delayed for years.

The review, founded in 1922, has a circulation of about 250,000, according to Catharine Donovan, the review's advertising production manager. Ad revenues for the review, which is non-profit, totaled $6.5 million in 1995, Van Leight said