A thirty-one-year career marked by consistent performance and increasing responsibility has culminated in a federal lawsuit against pharmaceutical giant AbbVie, where long-serving employee Marisol Bárzana Santiago alleges the company fostered an institutional pattern of age discrimination. The comprehensive court filing, submitted on February 2, 2026, details a series of events in which Bárzana was purportedly passed over for promotions in favor of substantially younger and less experienced individuals. This case brings to light serious allegations under both the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act and Puerto Rico’s Law No. 100, questioning the fairness of career advancement opportunities within the multinational corporation and setting the stage for a significant legal battle over workplace equality.
The Foundation of the Lawsuit
An Unblemished Record and a Blocked Path
The legal complaint meticulously documents Marisol Bárzana Santiago’s extensive and unblemished career, which commenced in April 1994 with Abbot Laboratories P.R. Inc., AbbVie’s predecessor. Over more than three decades, she progressed through a variety of roles, including Sales Representative, District Sales Manager, and Product Manager, demonstrating a consistent trajectory of professional growth and dedication. The lawsuit emphasizes a critical point: throughout her entire tenure, Bárzana has never received a formal reprimand, and her job performance has never been cited as a cause for concern. This exemplary record is positioned as the foundation of her argument, suggesting that her qualifications and experience should have made her a prime candidate for senior-level positions. Instead, the filing contends that her career has stagnated, not due to any shortcomings in her performance but because of an alleged systemic bias against older employees within the company’s culture. This forms the central theme of her legal challenge against the pharmaceutical company. The core of Bárzana’s grievance is the assertion of an “institutional pattern of age discrimination” that she claims has systematically derailed her career advancement. The lawsuit alleges that despite her profound experience and sterling performance history, her applications for managerial and senior roles were consistently and deliberately overlooked. According to the complaint, she was frequently the most senior and experienced applicant for these positions, yet AbbVie repeatedly chose to hire or promote significantly younger candidates who lacked her depth of knowledge and professional qualifications. This pattern, she argues, is not a series of isolated incidents but rather evidence of a deeply ingrained, discriminatory practice within the company’s hiring and promotion processes. The filing aims to demonstrate that her age, rather than her capabilities, became the primary factor in decisions that have unfairly limited her professional growth and denied her the opportunities she rightfully earned through decades of loyal service and proven success.
The Reclassification Without Reward
One of the pivotal events detailed in the lawsuit occurred in late 2023, when a Senior Analyst Manager position was advertised internally. Bárzana applied for the role and, on November 27, 2023, participated in an interview with a human resources representative. However, the complaint states she was never afforded the crucial opportunity to meet with the hiring manager, Kenneth Bruton, a significant step in the selection process. The situation took another turn in January 2024, when she was informed that the company had decided not to fill the position at all. Instead, Bruton communicated that her existing role would undergo a reclassification, elevating it from a Grade 15 to a Grade 16 and retitling it from IFT Specialist to IFT Sr. Specialist. This reclassification, presented as a form of advancement, is a central piece of evidence in her claim of unfair treatment, as the subsequent details revealed a significant disparity between the title change and any tangible benefits, setting the stage for further allegations of discrimination. The supposed promotion proved to be hollow, as the filing alleges the reclassification to a higher grade came with no corresponding increase in her base salary. This critical detail, which Kenneth Bruton allegedly failed to disclose, not only affected her regular pay but also had a direct negative impact on her 2024 annual bonus, which is calculated as a percentage of salary. The complaint draws a sharp and damning contrast between Bárzana’s experience and that of other employees. It explicitly claims that “substantially younger” colleagues who received similar job reclassifications did, in fact, receive salary increases commensurate with their new grades. This discrepancy is presented as clear evidence of discriminatory practice, suggesting that the company’s compensation policies were applied inequitably based on age. By denying her a pay raise that was standard for others, the company effectively devalued her promotion and reinforced the lawsuit’s central claim that older, more tenured employees were being systematically disadvantaged.
Specific Incidents of Alleged Bias
Questionable Inquiries and Pre-Determined Outcomes
The lawsuit highlights another deeply concerning episode surrounding a Marketing Manager position in the Specialty Division, which was posted in December 2024. The filing recounts a telephone conversation on December 20, 2024, between Bárzana and Wanda Borges, the Specialty Business Unit Manager. During this call, Borges allegedly began by inquiring about Bárzana’s interest in further career growth but then pivoted to a pointed and potentially discriminatory question: she asked Bárzana how much time she had left before her planned retirement. Such inquiries are often viewed as indicators of age bias in employment decisions. The implications of this conversation were realized on January 9, 2025, when Borges informed Bárzana that she would not be granted an interview for the position. The justification provided was that Bárzana did not appear as a candidate for promotion in AbbVie’s internal Talent Management Review system, a decision that Bárzana’s lawsuit implies was a pretext for age-based exclusion.
The outcome of the hiring process for the Marketing Manager role serves as a stark example in the complaint. Just one day after Bárzana was denied an interview, on January 10, 2025, the company announced it had selected Maria de Lourdes Flores for the position. The lawsuit emphasizes the significant disparities between the two candidates. Flores was described as being approximately twenty years younger than Bárzana and had a much shorter tenure with the company, having only joined AbbVie in August 2023. This hiring decision is presented as a clear instance of the company prioritizing a younger, far less experienced employee over a veteran with decades of relevant experience and a proven track record. This specific incident is used to substantiate the broader claim of a systemic pattern, where youth was seemingly valued over deep institutional knowledge and long-term loyalty, directly supporting the core allegations of age discrimination that are central to Bárzana’s legal action.
The Perfunctory Interview
A particularly flagrant instance of alleged discrimination occurred in May 2025, when three District Manager positions became available. Bárzana, continuing to seek advancement, applied for the roles and was subsequently scheduled for a panel interview on June 9, 2025, at 11:30 a.m. However, the lawsuit presents a damning piece of evidence suggesting that the interview process was merely a sham. According to the complaint, before Bárzana’s scheduled interview had even commenced, the company had already made its hiring decision for one of the positions. Between 11:00 and 11:30 a.m. that same morning, an announcement was allegedly circulated to the team via Microsoft Teams, congratulating Genesis Jaramillo on her appointment to one of the District Manager roles. This timeline indicates that Bárzana’s interview was rendered meaningless before it even began, reducing it to a perfunctory exercise to maintain a facade of a fair hiring process.
The selection of Genesis Jaramillo and the other two successful candidates further bolstered the lawsuit’s claims of age bias. The filing describes Jaramillo as being under the age of 40 and, critically, notes that she possessed no prior supervisory experience at AbbVie. Similarly, the other two District Manager positions were filled by candidates who, according to the suit, were also substantially younger and less experienced than Bárzana. The complaint also includes anecdotal evidence to support the existence of a discriminatory mindset among the company’s leadership. It recounts a conversation from July 21, 2025, in which Specialty Business Unit Manager Wanda Borges allegedly told Bárzana directly that the company’s Commercial Director was actively “looking for younger candidates.” This alleged statement provides a potential motive behind the pattern of hiring decisions and strengthens the argument that Bárzana was not being evaluated on her merits but was instead being systematically excluded based on her age.
The Path Forward in Court
As a result of these accumulated experiences, the lawsuit filed by Marisol Bárzana Santiago sought significant legal and financial remedies from the court. She requested a judicial order that would compel AbbVie to cease its alleged discriminatory practices and to appoint her to a position at Grade 16 or higher, with a salary reflective of that level and her extensive experience. Beyond professional restitution, the complaint demanded substantial monetary compensation for the damages incurred. This included claims for lost income resulting from the denied promotions, liquidated damages as provided for under the ADEA, and compensatory damages of at least $500,000. Furthermore, under the provisions of Puerto Rico Law No. 100, she sought double damages, in addition to the recovery of all attorney’s fees and court costs associated with the legal action. These allegations, as presented in the court filing, painted a picture of systemic bias, leaving the judicial system to determine the merits of the case.