PUERTO RICO Law and Practice Contributed by: Jorge C Pizarro-García, José R González-Nogueras, Karla Rivera-Rubio and Lloyd Isgut-Rivera, Pizarro & González
biased and thus that its results should not be trusted. Depending on the information that was disclosed, other claims may arise, such as claims of defamation, privacy violations or unfair treatment. These claims could have a negative impact on the trustworthiness of the investigation results and the ultimate decision made as a result of the investigation. 4.3 Measures Against the Respondent Employers may take certain interim measures before an investigation concludes, but these actions should remain preventive rather than disciplinary. Such meas - ures are appropriate when needed to protect safety, prevent retaliation, avoid interference with the investi - gation or avoid further misconduct. Common options include temporary reassignment, remote work, sched - ule changes or placing the respondent on paid admin - istrative leave pending investigation results. These steps should be the least restrictive necessary to address the risk. However, measures that function more clearly as dis - cipline, such as unpaid suspension or termination, should not be imposed before the facts are substanti - ated. If the allegations cannot be proved, a premature termination may constitute an unjust dismissal under Act 80-1976, and a premature punitive measure could be treated as discriminatory or as creating the cir - cumstances that can trigger a constructive discharge. Another risk of imposing a disciplinary measure prior to the conclusion of the investigation is that the disci - pline imposed after the investigation could be consid - ered a second sanction for the same violation. Conversely, not implementing reasonable preven - tive measures despite clear indications that they are needed may expose the employer to claims of failure to maintain a safe workplace and may increase liability under hostile-environment discrimination, sexual har - assment and workplace harassment statutes. 4.4 Protection of Other Employees Pursuant to their obligation to provide a safe, harass - ment-free working environment, employers may adopt protective measures for any employee who could be impacted by the conduct at issue. When allegations involve violence, threats or harassment, employers may take measures such as separating employees,
modifying work areas, co-ordinating security proto - cols, implementing temporary leave arrangements or offering remote work options. Employers that fail to take reasonable protective measures risk exposure to claims for negligent workplace safety or for not tak - ing prompt corrective action as required under Puerto Rico’s harassment statutes. Overbroad or unjustified measures, however, may disrupt operations or be viewed as retaliatory if they affect employees who were not responsible for the underlying conduct. 5. Procedural Requirements and Proof 5.1 Requirements Puerto Rico does not impose a rigid set of procedural guarantees for internal investigations, but employers are expected to follow a process that is reasonable, fair, and aligned with local statutory obligations. At a minimum, investigators should inform employees of the purpose of the interview, expectations of co- operation and confidentiality, and protections against retaliation. Courts assess the adequacy of an investi - gation rather than its form. Inadequate investigations may expose employers to liability. 5.2 Internal Regulations Employers in Puerto Rico may establish internal policies, including detailed investigation procedures, timelines, escalation steps, interview protocols, or additional rights afforded to employees during the process. Once adopted, these regulations become binding on the employer, and failure to follow them may support claims of discrimination or unjust dis - missal result. Courts treat employee handbooks and internal protocols as part of the employment contract. 5.3 Burden and Degree of Proof Puerto Rico law does not define the burden of proof or degree of proof that must be applied to internal investi - gations. In practical terms, the applied standard is the preponderance of the evidence, meaning it must be more likely than not that the conduct occurred accord - ing to the credibility determinations of the investigator. The reporter must provide the employer with sufficient information and facts to sustain the allegations pre - sented. Once the reporter provides this information, the employer must conduct its own investigation, if
314 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook