PR Act 100 Discrimination Claims: Puerto Rico SC Confirms Compulsory Arbitration

Takeaways

• The Puerto Rico Supreme Court’s significant Tucker v. Money Group ruling holds that courts must compel arbitration, even for Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Act discrimination claims, when the Federal Arbitration Act applies to a valid arbitration agreement.
• The Puerto Rico court clarified a prior exception to this rule allowing discrimination claims to bypass arbitration applies only to unionized employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, not to individual employees.
• Employers should consider the importance of assessing whether their employment agreements can be read as affecting interstate commerce and drafting robust arbitration provisions.

Related links

• Tucker v. Money Group, LLC y Otros
• Quiñones González v. Asociación
• Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Act

Article

The Puerto Rico Supreme Court issued a significant ruling in Tucker v. Money Group, LLC, 2026 T.S.P.R. 9 (Jan. 27, 2026), holding that individual employees who sign valid arbitration agreements must arbitrate discrimination claims under Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Act (Act 100) when the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) applies.

Discrimination claims must be arbitrated under Act 100 when a valid arbitration clause exists in a private employment agreement and the agreement affects interstate commerce in some way, triggering the FAA.

Background

In this case, the employee executed an employment agreement requiring that “all disputes” related to her employment be resolved through arbitration in Puerto Rico. As part of her role, she led an outreach-center business unit that engaged consumers across multiple U.S. states, thereby tying her work directly to interstate commerce.

After her termination, the employee filed claims in court for unjust dismissal under Act 80, sex discrimination under Act 100, and retaliation under Act 115. She argued that Article 4 of Act 100 granted the trial court original jurisdiction notwithstanding the arbitration clause. She also relied on Quiñones v. Asociación, 161 DPR 668, a 2004 Puerto Rico Supreme Court decision holding that unionized employees covered by collective bargaining agreements may bypass arbitration and litigate statutory discrimination claims in court.

Puerto Rico Supreme Court Decision

In a case of first impression, the Supreme Court rejected both arguments. It held that individual employees who sign valid arbitration agreements must arbitrate discrimination claims under Act 100 when the FAA applies

First, the Supreme Court emphasized that the FAA governed the agreement because both the employer’s operations and the employee’s duties affected interstate commerce. Once the FAA applies, any local statute or interpretation that disfavors arbitration is preempted, and courts must enforce arbitration agreements according to their terms.

Second, the Supreme Court clarified that Quiñones does not apply to individual employment contracts. That case was limited to the collective bargaining context, where unions represent employees and arbitration is part of a negotiated labor framework, it explained. By contrast, the employee in Tucker had entered into an individual employment agreement and, therefore, was bound by its arbitration clause.

Implications for Employers

Act 100 does not bar arbitration of discrimination claims when the FAA applies. Employers should consider the importance of assessing whether their employment agreements can be read as affecting interstate commerce and drafting robust arbitration provisions. The case underscores the importance of careful drafting of arbitration agreements.

Jackson Lewis attorneys are available to assist with workplace issues related to arbitration agreements, employment contracts, and statutory discrimination claims to help employers ensure compliance with applicable federal and Puerto Rico laws.