The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico just ruled on January 14, 2025, in Roberto Jiménez Soto v. Carolina Catering Corp. (Sky Caterers) & Management Group Investors, LLC, that the protection against discrimination based on national origin under Puerto Rico’s Law No. 100 does not include an employee’s immigration status and citizenship. After an extensive analysis of direct and circumstantial evidentiary standards and the burden-shifting-framework under McDonnel Douglas, in the end, what was determining in the case and for a favorable ruling for the employer was the application of the “same actor rule.”
Background: Roberto Jiménez Soto, a Dominican Republic citizen and U.S. legal permanent resident, was terminated by his employer, Sky Caterers, because his permanent resident card (green card) had expired. He alleged discrimination based on national origin under PR Law No. 100, asserting that the employer perceived and treated him as an undocumented immigrant despite maintaining his legal authorization to work.
The employer countered that the dismissal was due to his inability to present a valid green card, as required by airport security regulations.
Court’s Analysis:
- Scope of “National Origin” under Law No. 100:
- The Court clarified that “national origin” does not encompass citizenship or immigration status. This interpretation aligns with federal case law under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which the Court applied extensively in this case. The Court held that requiring a green card for compliance with federal employment and airport security requirements does not constitute discrimination based on national origin.
- Application of the “Same Actor Rule”:
- The Court applied the “same actor rule,” which presumes that if the same individual who hired an employee later terminates them within a short time, discriminatory intent is less likely. In this case, the HR professional who knew of Jiménez Soto’s Dominican nationality hired him shortly before his termination, weakening claims of intentional discrimination based on national origin. In relying on Rodriguez-Cardi v. MMM Holdlings, Inc., 936 F3d. 40, (1st. Cir. 2019) (see, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-1st-circuit/1907153.html) and others, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court concluded that it didn’t make sense that the employer could have developed an aversion to Jimenez’s national origin in just 17 days of hiring him.
- Proof of Discriminatory Intent:
- The plaintiff’s evidence failed to demonstrate direct or circumstantial discrimination by the employer. The Court emphasized that an employer’s reliance on federal work authorization requirements, even if procedurally flawed, does not automatically imply discriminatory intent under Law No. 100.
Decision: The Puerto Rico Supreme Court reversed lower court rulings that had found for the plaintiff, ordering the dismissal of the discrimination claim. The Court held that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons related to compliance with work authorization and security regulations, not national origin discrimination.
Key Takeaways for Employers:
- National Origin vs. Immigration Status: Employers must distinguish between discriminatory practices based on national origin and lawful actions related to immigration compliance as well as the concepts of citizenship and residency, or even race and ethnic characteristics.
- Compliance Documentation and Training: Clear, consistent and correct application of federal work authorization requirements is crucial to avoid claims of discrimination or failure to comply with immigration laws. Management and HR Professionals, especially those with decision-making authority, must remain up to date with training on these topics.
- “Same Actor” Defense: The hiring and subsequent termination by the same individual can serve as a defense against allegations of discrimination, particularly when the timing is short, and reasons are documented.
This decision reinforces the importance of aligning employment practices with both local and federal discrimination laws, emphasizing clarity in addressing work authorization issues without mixing them with protected characteristics like national origin.
Watch our related LinkedIn video here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/katherine-gonz%C3%A1lez-valent%C3%ADn-9b818296_ferraiuoli-ferraiuoliteamlabor-derechodelempleo-activity-7285292676642410496-l7PY?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_ios
This Notice to Clients and Friends has been prepared for information purposes only and is not intended, and should not be relied upon, as legal advice. To further discuss or obtain additional information, please contact us at your convenience.
Katherine González-Valentín kgonzalez@ferraiuoli.com; René J. Avilés-García raviles@ferraiuoli.com; Nani Marchand-Sánchez nmarchand@ferraiuoli.com; Gregory J. Figueroa-Rosario gfigueroa@ferraiuoli.com; Patricia M. Marvez-Valiente pmarvez@ferraiuoli.com; Gisela E. Sánchez-Alemán gsanchez@ferraiuoli.com; Nathalia S. Marrero Méndez nmarrero@ferraiuoli.com