Recent discrimination lawsuits prompt shift in Puerto Rico labor laws
Attorney Reynaldo Quintana-Latorre explains new rulings that are redefining employer obligations.
Recent discrimination cases in federal and Puerto Rico courts have dramatically reshaped the labor law landscape in Puerto Rico, according to a local attorney who spoke at the Labor Symposium 2025, hosted by the Society for Human Resource Management Puerto Rico Chapter (SHRM) on April 10.
Reynaldo Quintana-Latorre of Baerga & Quintana Law Offices presented recent lawsuits that have altered the way discrimination cases are handled in Puerto Rico.
These lawsuits and the courts’ rulings have made discrimination claims more flexible under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Puerto Rico’s Act 4, known as the Labor Transformation and Flexibility Act, Quintana-Latorre said.
“So, we have federalized our discrimination laws because in Puerto Rico we must follow the federal standard (per Act 4),” Quintana-Latorre told News is my Business.
Law No. 4 significantly revised laws related to employment discrimination, termination, wages, working hours, vacation and sick leave, lactation breaks, and employee benefits. It mandates that Puerto Rico’s labor laws be interpreted consistently with federal ones unless local laws explicitly dictate otherwise.
Changes under Title VII
Quintana-Latorre highlighted the case of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis and explained the impact that this case will have in local discrimination cases.
Jatonya Clayborn Muldrow was a sergeant in the St. Louis Police Department in Missouri, working in the department’s intelligence division. In 2017, a new male commander transferred Muldrow to a different district, which had the same salary and title, but changed her schedule, overtime opportunities, prestige and uniform. The new commander also replaced Muldrow with a male officer.
Muldrow filed a Title VII lawsuit against the City of St. Louis, alleging that the transfer constituted gender discrimination with respect to her terms and conditions of employment. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate with respect to compensation, terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
The U.S. Supreme Court found that an employee alleging discriminatory job transfer only needs to show some harm to their employment, not necessarily a material or significant disadvantage — that is, the court ruled that a Title VII violation can occur even when an employee’s transfer does not result in significant harm such as loss of pay or benefits.
This case redefined how an employee’s job situation must be affected for that person to be able to allege discrimination, Quintana-Latorre said.
“The ruling, therefore, makes claims of discrimination under Title VII more flexible,” he explained.
Changes under Puerto Rico Act 4
Another critical case for Puerto Rico labor law is Roberto Jiménez v. Carolina Catering Corp., Quintana-Latorre said.
Roberto Jiménez-Soto was terminated after his U.S. Permanent Resident Card (known as a green card) expired. He sued Carolina Catering for discrimination based on his national origin or social condition, alleging he was perceived and treated as an undocumented immigrant.
On Jan. 14, 2025, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court held that national origin refers to place of birth or ancestry, and does not include immigration or citizenship status. National origin discrimination would involve, for example, an employer refusing to hire people who speak with a foreign accent or have a name associated with a particular national origin.
This was the first time the Puerto Rico Supreme Court had faced a discrimination case since the 2017 Labor Reform, Quintana-Latorre said.
The Labor Reform amended Act 100 of 1959, Puerto Rico’s main anti-discrimination statute; Act 3 of 1942, the Working Mothers Protection Act; Act 15 of 2021, which prohibits discrimination in employment of authorized and registered patients of medical cannabis; Act 44, Puerto Rico’s disability discrimination statute, the local counterpart of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA); and Act 69 of 1985, which focuses on ensuring equal employment opportunities for both men and women.
“But our core law is Act 100, and it suffered a drastic change with Act 4 because it eliminated the presumption of discrimination that Act 100 had,” Quintana-Latorre said.
“Before the Labor Reform, when someone got fired, there was a presumption of discrimination, and the employer had the burden of proof to show a justifiable reason for the termination. If the employer could not establish grounds for termination, the dismissal automatically was considered to be discriminatory,” he explained.
“That scheme was left behind by Act 4, and now the federal standard is our local standard,” Quintana-Latorre said.
Tips for employers
Quintana-Latorre offered the following advice for employers:
- They need to understand that any decision they make about an employee could be challenged as discriminatory.
- They should always be prepared to defend and justify their position at court and relate their decisions to performance or operational issues.
- They must have policies in place that address discrimination complaints and grievances under federal and local law, including an effective and efficient investigative process.
- They must train their supervisors to understand the consequences of the decisions they make regarding employees and to document every detail correctly in case they face a legal claim.
- They should educate themselves about changes in labor laws that affect their operations and remember that these laws apply depending on the number of employees. For example, in operations with fewer than 15 employees, Title VII does not apply but Law 100 does.
While Quintana-Latorre believes that Puerto Rico’s labor laws are now more balanced, he said they are still too rigid.
“We have work environments around us that are much less regulated and easier to do business in,” he said, citing the Dominican Republic as an example. “We need to adapt, respond to change and be more flexible. Even with the Labor Reform, our laws are very inflexible. It’s an overly rigorous framework that does not allow for creativity in employee compensation and treatment.”
