Skip to main content

Gonzalez-Bermudez v. Abbott Laboratories PR Inc.

1st CircuitMarch 3, 2021No. 19-2249PCited 11 times
Mixed ResultAbbott Laboratories P.R. Inc.$500,000 awarded
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

DiscriminationRetaliation

Outcome

Plaintiff prevailed on retaliation claim under Puerto Rico Law 115, with jury awarding $250,000 back pay and $4 million emotional distress (reduced to approximately $500,000 by district court, to be doubled). However, appellate court reversed liability on ADEA claims and corresponding Puerto Rico Law 100 age discrimination claims due to insufficient evidence.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Maria Gonzalez-Bermudez sued her former employer Abbott Laboratories after claiming the company discriminated against her because of her age and then retaliated against her for complaining about it. She argued that Abbott treated her unfairly due to her age and then punished her for speaking up about the discrimination. **What the Court Decided** The courts reached a split decision. A jury found that Abbott did retaliate against Gonzalez-Bermudez for complaining about discrimination, awarding her $250,000 in back pay and money for emotional distress. However, a higher court later ruled there wasn't enough evidence to prove age discrimination actually occurred in the first place. The total award was reduced to approximately $500,000, though it may be doubled under Puerto Rico law. **What This Means for Workers** This case shows that even if you can't prove the original discrimination happened, you may still win if your employer retaliates against you for complaining about it. Workers are protected when they report suspected discrimination in good faith, even if that discrimination is later found to be unproven. However, the case also demonstrates that discrimination claims require strong evidence to succeed.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.