PUERTO RICO Trends and Developments Contributed by: Jorge C Pizarro-García, José R González-Nogueras, Karla Rivera-Rubio and Lloyd Isgut-Rivera, Pizarro & González
Once operational, complaints submitted through this mechanism would be investigated by the Office of the Women’s Advocate or the Department of Labor and Human Resources, creating parallel external inves - tigative avenues that would operate independently of employer processes. Even in its current state, the statutory framework underscores the heightened importance of internal investigations, as deficiencies may ultimately be scrutinised through external admin - istrative review. From a litigation and risk management standpoint, sexual harassment investigations are frequently scru - tinised as part of the employer’s defence. Puerto Rico law imposes strict liability in certain circumstances, particularly when the alleged harasser is a supervisor or agent. Even in cases involving co-workers or third parties, employers may be held liable if they knew or should have known of the conduct and failed to take immediate and appropriate corrective action. The quality, timeliness and neutrality of the internal inves - tigation are therefore central to determining employer exposure In practice, these developments have elevated sexual harassment investigations to one of the most sensi - tive and consequential functions of HR in Puerto Rico. Employers must ensure that their investigative frame - works align with statutory mandates, administrative guidance and evolving enforcement mechanisms. Whistle-Blower Protections and Participation in Internal Investigations Whistle-blower protection is a critical component of Puerto Rico’s employment law framework and plays a central role in shaping how internal HR investiga - tions are conducted. Act 115-1991 establishes broad protections against retaliation for employees who provide testimony, information or expressions in leg - islative, administrative or judicial forums. Significantly for employers, the statute expressly extends these protections to employees who participate in internal investigative processes established by the employer, even when no external complaint has yet been filed. Unlike whistle-blower statutes in some US jurisdictions that focus primarily on reports to government agen - cies, Act 115-1991 recognises internal reporting and
co-operation as protected activities. The law prohibits employers from discharging, threatening or discrimi - nating against employees with respect to the terms, conditions, compensation or privileges of employment because the employee offered or attempted to offer information, testimony or expressions during internal company procedures or to any person in a position of authority. This statutory language places internal HR investigations squarely within the scope of protected activity, substantially increasing the employer’s obli - gations once an investigation begins. In practical terms, this framework means that com - plainants, witnesses and collaborators in internal investigations enjoy statutory protection regardless of whether the allegations ultimately prove to be sub - stantiated. Courts in Puerto Rico focus on the employ - ee’s participation in protected activity rather than on the outcome of the investigation. As a result, adverse employment actions taken shortly after an employee participates in an internal investigation are frequently scrutinised under a retaliation analysis, even when the employer asserts legitimate business reasons for its decisions. The evidentiary structure established by Act 115-1991 further elevates the importance of careful investiga - tive management. An employee may establish a prima facie case of retaliation by showing participation in protected activity and a subsequent adverse employ - ment action. Once this showing is made, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate and substantiate a legitimate, non-retaliatory reason for the action. Inter - nal investigation records, timeliness and documenta - tion often become central to this analysis, as courts assess whether the employer’s explanation is credible or merely a pretext for retaliation. The remedies available under Act 115-1991 are par - ticularly significant and underscore the high stakes involved in mishandling internal investigations. The statute authorises double damages, back pay, rein - statement, compensation for emotional distress, attorneys’ fees and, in certain circumstances, crimi - nal liability for individuals involved in retaliatory deci - sions. These expansive remedies have contributed to increased litigation and have reinforced the need for
326 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook