Puerto Rico Supreme Court Enforces Private Employment Arbitration Clauses under Act 100 Discrimination Claims

In Kendall Hope Tucker v. Money Group, 2026 TSPR 9, 217 DPR ___ (2026), the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico addressed the enforceability of an arbitration clause contained in a private employment contract in the context of a discrimination claim filed under Act No. 100 of June 30, 1959 (“Act 100”).¹ The case arose when an employee, after executing an employment agreement that included a mandatory arbitration provision, filed a judicial action alleging employment discrimination pursuant to Act 100. The employer moved to compel arbitration based on the contractual clause, which the employee challenged on public policy grounds, arguing that Act 100 claims were not subject to arbitration. 

The Supreme Court held that Act 100 discrimination claims are subject to mandatory arbitration when a valid arbitration clause exists in a private employment agreement and the contract affects interstate commerce, thus triggering the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). Notably, the Court expressly limited this holding to private, individual employment agreements, clarifying that it does not apply to unionized employees covered by collective bargaining agreements with optional arbitration clauses, whose Act 100 claims remain governed by previous precedent of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, Quiñones v. Asociación, 161 DPR 668 (2004).

The decision affirms the validity of arbitration clauses in private employment contracts covering Act 100 claims, limits forum-shopping and preliminary litigation over jurisdiction, and provides guidance to adjudicative bodies and agencies to honor arbitration agreements when statutory rights are preserved, thereby promoting procedural efficiency and contractual certainty.