Puerto Rico Supreme Court Clarifies Employee Exhaustion Requirements Under Puerto Rico’s Workplace Harassment Act

In its first decision interpreting Puerto Rico’s Act to Prohibit and Prevent Workplace Harassment, Act No. 90 of August 7, 2020 (“Act 90”), the Puerto Rico Supreme Court held in Carmen E. Reyes Cobián v. Autoridad de los Puertos de Puerto Rico, 2026 TSPR 99, 218 DPR __ (2026), that the employer’s lack of an internal complaint protocol under Act 90 makes an employee’s exhaustion of internal procedures inapplicable, but does not eliminate the pre-suit obligation to exhaust administrative remedies before the Judiciary’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau. 

Act 90 and its Exhaustion Provision 

Act 90 prohibits workplace harassment and requires employers to implement policies and procedures for preventing, reporting, investigating, and addressing complaints. Before filing a workplace harassment lawsuit, employees generally must follow a two-step exhaustion process: (1) utilize the employer's internal complaint procedure, and (2) present the claim to the Judiciary's Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau. If the matter is not resolved through that process, the employee may then pursue a judicial claim. 

Case Background

The plaintiff filed claims for sex discrimination under Puerto Rico’s general Anti-discrimination Act, Act No. 100 of June 30, 1959 (“Act 100”) and for workplace harassment under Act 90. The employer sought dismissal, arguing, among other things, that the employee failed to exhaust the administrative remedies required by Act 90 before filing suit. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and referred the matter to the Judiciary’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau. 

The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed and dismissed the case. On further review, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court partially affirmed the lower court, dismissing the Act 90 claim and allowing the Act 100 claim to proceed. In doing so, the Court provided important guidance regarding exhaustion requirements under Act 90. 

The Supreme Court’s Holding

The Court found that the employer had not implemented a workplace-harassment protocol as required by Act 90, even though it maintained procedures for discrimination complaints. Accordingly, the Court held that the employee was not required to exhaust internal remedies because no Act 90 complaint process existed. Where an employer fails to establish a workplace-harassment procedure, an employee may move directly to the next step contemplated by the statute.

Employees Must Still Seek Relief Through the Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau Before Filing Suit

Importantly for employers, the Supreme Court also held that the absence of an internal workplace harassment protocol does not excuse compliance with Act 90’s separate requirement that employees present their claims to the Judiciary’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau before filing a civil action. While the parties are not required to participate in mediation or reach a settlement, Act 90 still requires an employee to first present the claim to the Judiciary's Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau before filing suit. 

A Court Referral Does Not Cure the Failure to Comply

The employee argued that any procedural deficiency had been cured when the trial court referred the case to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau. The Supreme Court rejected that argument. According to the Court, the statute requires the employee to go to the Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau before filing a judicial action. Because the employee failed to do so, and because the referral occurred only after litigation had already commenced, the statutory prerequisite was not satisfied. As a result, the Court upheld dismissal of the Act 90 workplace harassment claim. 

Practical Implications for Private Employers

This decision is significant for employers because it distinguishes between two separate exhaustion components under Act 90: the exhaustion of employer-level internal remedies and exhaustion before the Judiciary’s Alternative Dispute Resolution Bureau. The absence of a compliant internal protocol may excuse the first step, but it does not eliminate the second. 

In practical terms, the decision underscores the importance of adopting and maintaining an internal workplace harassment protocol that complies with Act 90. A compliant protocol is important not only for prevention, reporting, and response, but also because it preserves the employer-side exhaustion mechanism contemplated by the statute. Employers that maintain clear, compliant protocols will be better positioned to address complaints internally, promote compliance with Act 90, and strengthen available defenses should litigation arise.