HR Internal Investigations 2026 Comparisons

In Puerto Rico, HR internal investigations generally begin when an employee lodges a complaint with the employer or when an employer receives information or is put on notice of a situation suggesting a potential violation of law or internal policy, or conduct that could affect the workplace. This includes allegations of sexual harassment, workplace bullying, discrimination, retaliation, safety risks, threats or violence, misuse of company property, insubordination, or patterns of deficient performance or rule violations. The duty to conduct an internal investigation is also triggered when a supervisor’s or employee’s conduct, whether on or off duty, may reasonably affect workplace operations or the employer’s reputation. Since Puerto Rico requires just cause when terminating an employee, employers are advised to conduct thorough, timely and impartial investigation when they become aware of a situation that could result in an adverse employment action, even where termination is not contemplated. In the private sector, Act No 80 of May 30, 1976, as amended, 29 L.P.R.A. §185a et seq. (“Act 80-1976”), makes it unlawful for an employer to terminate an employee for arbitrary or capricious reasons. An employer that proceeds in this manner is required to pay the terminated employee the statutory severance contemplated in Act 80-1976.

In Puerto Rico, several statutes impose upon an employer the obligation, or strongly incentivise an employer, to carry out an investigation in order to mitigate its liability or properly defend against future claims.

First, Act No 17 of April 22, 1988, known as the Act to Prohibit Sexual Harassment in the Workplace, 29 L.P.R.A. § 155 et seq. (“Act 17-1988”), Act No 90 of August 6, 2020, known as the Workplace Harassment Act, 29 L.P.R.A. § 3111 et seq. (“Act 90-2020”), and Act No 217 of September 29, 2006, known as the Protocol for Managing Domestic Violence Situations Act, 8 L.P.R.A. § 601 note (“Act 217-2006”), require employers to implement written protocols and take prompt corrective measures when allegations arise. Act 90-2020 expressly mandates that all allegations of workplace harassment be investigated. As to Act 17-1988, while it does not explicitly require an investigation, case law has shown that a timely investigation is the only effective way for an employer to comply with its statutory duty to prevent and correct sexual harassment and to reduce potential liability.

Second, in the broader disciplinary context, Act 80-1976 requires employers to pay statutory severance when a termination is arbitrary or capricious or lacks just cause. In light of this statutory framework, employers are advised to conduct internal investigations before imposing disciplinary measures. A properly conducted investigation and its findings allow the employer to demonstrate that the action taken is supported by information obtained through the investigative process and that, prior to imposing discipline, the employer confirmed that the employee’s conduct adversely affected the employer’s operations.

Third, employers may conduct investigations under their internal policies, which commonly address performance issues, rule violations, insubordination and other forms of misconduct. These internal rules are lawful bases for investigations so long as they are reasonable and provided to employees in advance. Once an employer creates the internal policies that establish how and when internal investigations will take place, an employer’s failure to comply with its internal policies before imposing discipline may expose it to a finding of arbitrary action or lack of just cause.

Finally, employers may investigate when necessary to comply with general duties of care such as maintaining a safe workplace or responding to complaints that may implicate tort liability, or to co-operate with external regulatory or law-enforcement inquiries.

Puerto Rico law does not require a single, uniform reporting channel for all workplace concerns. However, for sexual harassment (Act 17-1988), workplace bullying (Act 90-2020), and domestic-violence situations in the workplace (Act 217-2006), employers must adopt written protocols consistent with model guidelines issued by the Department of Labor and Human Resources and the Office of the Women’s Advocate. These protocols must include the reporting options specified in the agency models. For example, the protocol for Act 17-1988 establishes that employers must allow oral, written or anonymous complaints and must investigate rumours that create “real suspicion” even when no complaint was formally lodged.

Additionally, the guidance provided by the Department of Labor and Human Resources regarding Act 90-2020 requires employers to establish an adequate procedure to notify workplace harassment complaints that is both effective and fair in the handling of cases. To that end, the guidance requires employers to notify its workforce of the individual (or individuals) who will receive workplace harassment complaints. The guidance does not require that a particular position or person be tasked with handling workplace harassment complaints; it only requires that the individual be identified so the employees know where to file.

No statute specifies who must conduct workplace investigations. In the context of workplace harassment complaints, the only requirement is that the employer identify the individual tasked with receiving and handling workplace harassment complaints. An employer’s most important responsibility when carrying out an HR internal investigation is to ensure the investigation is timely, thorough and impartial. Training and objectivity is critical in this stage. Usually, investigations are carried out by the HR Department, but when a complaint involves complex or sensitive legal issues or involve senior management, external investigators or counsel may be brought in. Use of external counsel is common when the allegations may lead to litigation.

An employer must conduct an internal investigation when required by statute, regulation, internal policy or an adopted protocol. Act 90-2020 expressly mandates the investigation of all workplace harassment allegations. Likewise, under Act 17-1988, conducting an investigation is the only effective way for an employer to meet its statutory duty to prevent and correct sexual harassment, and the required protocol must reflect that obligation. Employers also have a duty to investigate allegations involving safety risks, violence or threats in order to comply with their general obligation to maintain a safe and secure workplace. If an employer’s handbook requires an investigation, the employer must comply with its internal policies.

There is no absolute prohibition on conducting investigations, but they may be temporarily inappropriate when the conduct in question is already under active criminal investigation and employer action could interfere with law enforcement proceedings.

An internal investigation is typically warranted when the information received indicates a potential policy violation. The employer also assesses whether leaving the issue unaddressed could allow it to escalate into harassment, retaliation or hostile-work-environment claims, or impair the employer’s ability to demonstrate good-faith compliance in future litigation.

Investigations are also initiated when consistency in discipline is required to avoid arbitrary decision-making under Act 80-1976. In practice, even when it is not legally mandatory, employers typically elect to investigate whenever doing so is necessary to document decision-making, mitigate liability and maintain a professional workplace.

The guidance provided by the Department of Labor and Human Resources regarding Act 90-2020 requires employers to notify the reporter of the investigation that will be carried out. There is no statutory right for the respondent to be formally notified when an internal investigation is opened. However, employers typically inform both parties as a matter of best practice and in order to comply with transparency expectations. Reporters are generally told that their complaint will be investigated, while respondents are informed of the nature of the allegations so they may meaningfully respond.

Employers generally do not have a legal obligation to notify authorities when an internal HR investigation is opened. However, specific situations do trigger mandatory reporting. For example, workplace incidents involving severe injuries or fatalities must be reported to the Puerto Rico Occupational Safety and Health Administration (PR OSHA) within the required statutory timelines. In addition, when the alleged conduct appears to constitute a crime, employers may choose to file a police report or, in cases of workplace domestic violence or stalking, may petition for a protective order after notifying the affected employee under Act No 54 of August 15, 1989, known as the Domestic Violence Prevention and Intervention Act, 8 L.P.R.A. § 601 et seq. (“Act 54-1989”), and Act No 284 of August 21, 1999, known as the Stalking Prevention Act, 33 L.P.R.A. § 4013 (“Act 284-1999”).

Outside these limited circumstances, employers may need to report matters only when required by sector-specific regulatory obligations. In those cases, they typically provide only the essential information needed to comply with the regulatory mandate.

Employers may ask parties to sign confidentiality agreements or NDAs covering an internal investigation, although such agreements are not widely used in practice. NDAs may not violate statutes such as the federal Speak Out Act in sexual harassment contexts, nor may they restrict employees from co-operating with government agencies and reporting unlawful conduct by their employer. Any confidentiality request must respect limits under the National Labor Relations Act, which prohibits rules that have a chilling effect on employees’ right to discuss matters such as wages, hours and working conditions, unless the employer can show a specific, legitimate business reason, such as protecting witnesses, preserving evidence, preventing fabrication of testimony or preventing cover-ups.

Even without a signed NDA, most internal regulations impose a duty of confidentiality, and breaches by any employee may lead to discipline or civil liability if they harm another employee’s integrity or privacy. Employers also may seek injunctive or contractual remedies when NDAs are violated.

Employers routinely conduct preliminary assessments to determine whether a full investigation is warranted. This step is useful for allocating resources, identifying immediate risks and determining whether interim protective measures are necessary. However, when the reported conduct involves workplace harassment, the employer must proceed with a full investigation regardless of the outcome of the preliminary assessment. In contrast, when the matter involves performance concerns or interpersonal issues that do not fall under a statutory duty to investigate, the employer may follow its internal policies to decide whether a full investigation is appropriate.

Internal investigations typically begin with interviews of the reporter and the respondent, followed by any witnesses with personal or relevant knowledge of the events. Witnesses may include co-workers, supervisors, other affected employees, or individuals identified during the investigative process, and in some circumstances external parties when they have direct knowledge of the events. Although there is no fixed number of interviews, case law suggests speaking with all individuals who possess first-hand information and avoiding interviews of people with no meaningful knowledge.

Employers usually remind employees that co-operation during investigations is a condition of employment and part of their responsibility under company policy, and many employers expressly list lack of participation as conduct subject to disciplinary action, including termination. When an interviewee refuses to participate or only co-operates partially, employers typically document the refusal and determine whether discipline is appropriate.

Remote interviews are permitted, and employers may use them when logistics or urgency require flexibility, such as when employees are off-site, when teams work across multiple locations, when the interviewee is on leave or when the interviewee is not currently employed by the organisation.

Investigations are typically conducted by one primary interviewer, who is sometimes accompanied by a second person who serves as a note-taker or observer. There are no legal requirements regarding interviewers, but best practice is to select individuals who are objective, properly trained and not in the direct reporting line of the parties involved. Employers usually choose interviewers who understand the purpose and limits of the investigation, are familiar with company policies and operations, possess strong questioning skills and can project credibility if later called as witnesses. Employers may also match the interviewer’s gender with the interviewee in sensitive cases, such as sexual harassment matters, to increase interviewee comfort and reduce perceived bias.

Neutral third parties are occasionally present during interviews to support credibility and ensure procedural fairness, although this is not a common practice and is typically reserved for more sensitive or high-risk investigations. Their use tends to arise in cases involving senior executives or sensitive allegations, or where the parties present conflicting accounts and the employer anticipates potential external scrutiny by a court, administrative agency or union representative. The neutral party may be an HR professional, an in-house compliance officer or an external investigator.

Employees generally do not have a legal right to be accompanied by a support person or a lawyer during an internal HR interview unless the employer’s policy permits it. However, unionised employees may request the presence of a union representative under their Weingarten rights when they reasonably believe the interview could result in discipline, and once such a request is made, the employer must either allow the representative to be present, let the employee decide to proceed without one, or end the interview.

Interviewers typically begin by explaining the purpose of the interview, the employee’s general duty to co-operate, expectations of honesty and confidentiality, and the protections against retaliation. For non-union employees, these disclosures reflect best practices. For unionised employees, however, additional safeguards may apply. Employers must consider whether the interview could implicate union rights and, if so, follow the principles established by the National Labor Relations Board. Before beginning any questioning, employers should make sure to:

• communicate the purpose of the questioning;
• assure the employee that no reprisals will result;
• confirm voluntary participation;
• conduct the interview in an environment free of hostility towards union activity;
• avoid coercive questioning;
• limit questions to matters necessary to the investigation;
• refrain from probing into the employee’s subjective state of mind; and
• avoid interfering in any way with protected rights.

If an interviewee asks to stop the interview, the investigator usually pauses to assess the reason for the request. Some employees may need a break for emotional reasons, as a reasonable accommodation, or for other legitimate purposes. When the interviewee refuses to continue entirely and does not have a legitimate justification, employers typically document the refusal and determine whether discipline is appropriate for violating internal policy and failing to comply with the employee’s duty to co-operate.

Minutes are typically taken during interviews, and summarised minutes are acceptable as long as they accurately reflect the interview’s content. Employers may, but are not required to, allow interviewees to review the minutes. Signatures are not mandatory unless the employer’s internal protocol requires it. Minutes may be prepared internally by HR or the assigned investigator, provided that neutrality is maintained. Puerto Rico courts often evaluate the sufficiency, not the form, of an employer’s documentation when assessing the adequacy of an investigation.

Recordings may be made by the employer if the interviewee is informed, although this is not standard practice. When recordings are made, a transcript may be prepared and shared with any individuals the employer chooses to designate. Employers may warn participants that unauthorised recording violates workplace policy and is not permitted, and they may implement technical or procedural measures to discourage it, such as disabling platform recording features in remote interviews.

Beyond interviews, employers commonly review emails, messages from employer-owned devices, security footage, access logs, personnel records, social media activity and relevant documents. Digital forensics may be used when necessary to preserve metadata or recover deleted files, especially in misconduct involving technology misuse or harassment via messaging platforms. These steps must comply with Puerto Rico’s constitutional protections of privacy and human dignity, meaning that employers should avoid intrusive methods such as examining personal devices or private belongings, and must provide notice that they may evaluate the performance of an employee through the review of security footage.

Employers in Puerto Rico are responsible for providing a safe, harassment-free working environment and must take the necessary steps to ensure the safety of the workplace. To comply with their legal obligations, employers may adopt a series of measures to safeguard reporters during an investigation, even when the law does not mandate specific actions. Common measures include separating the parties, adjusting work schedules, assigning temporary alternative duties, authorising remote work, placing employees on non-disciplinary leave pending investigation results, or increasing supervisory presence. The necessary measures will vary depending on the specific facts and conduct at issue. However, if employers fail to provide a safe working environment or protect the reporter, they risk claims of failure to prevent harassment. At the same time, employers must be careful on the measures to be implemented so they do not unintentionally harm the reporter in a way that could be construed as retaliation (for example, by transferring the employee or reducing pay or opportunities).

Employers should implement measures to protect both reporter and respondent during the investigation phase and until a decision is made to ensure a safe working environment. Furthermore, employers must conduct thorough, timely and impartial investigations. To that end, employers are advised to conduct investigations in a confidential manner to the extent possible, sharing information only with those individuals necessary to carry out the investigation and instructing witnesses that information should be kept confidential to allow the investigation to conclude. Failure to protect respondents during the investigation phase may result in allegations that the investigation was biased and thus that its results should not be trusted. Depending on the information that was disclosed, other claims may arise, such as claims of defamation, privacy violations or unfair treatment. These claims could have a negative impact on the trustworthiness of the investigation results and the ultimate decision made as a result of the investigation.

Employers may take certain interim measures before an investigation concludes, but these actions should remain preventive rather than disciplinary. Such measures are appropriate when needed to protect safety, prevent retaliation, avoid interference with the investigation or avoid further misconduct. Common options include temporary reassignment, remote work, schedule changes or placing the respondent on paid administrative leave pending investigation results. These steps should be the least restrictive necessary to address the risk.

However, measures that function more clearly as discipline, such as unpaid suspension or termination, should not be imposed before the facts are substantiated. If the allegations cannot be proved, a premature termination may constitute an unjust dismissal under Act 80-1976, and a premature punitive measure could be treated as discriminatory or as creating the circumstances that can trigger a constructive discharge. Another risk of imposing a disciplinary measure prior to the conclusion of the investigation is that the discipline imposed after the investigation could be considered a second sanction for the same violation.

Conversely, not implementing reasonable preventive measures despite clear indications that they are needed may expose the employer to claims of failure to maintain a safe workplace and may increase liability under hostile-environment discrimination, sexual harassment and workplace harassment statutes.

Pursuant to their obligation to provide a safe, harassment-free working environment, employers may adopt protective measures for any employee who could be impacted by the conduct at issue. When allegations involve violence, threats or harassment, employers may take measures such as separating employees, modifying work areas, co-ordinating security protocols, implementing temporary leave arrangements or offering remote work options. Employers that fail to take reasonable protective measures risk exposure to claims for negligent workplace safety or for not taking prompt corrective action as required under Puerto Rico’s harassment statutes. Overbroad or unjustified measures, however, may disrupt operations or be viewed as retaliatory if they affect employees who were not responsible for the underlying conduct.

Puerto Rico does not impose a rigid set of procedural guarantees for internal investigations, but employers are expected to follow a process that is reasonable, fair, and aligned with local statutory obligations. At a minimum, investigators should inform employees of the purpose of the interview, expectations of co-operation and confidentiality, and protections against retaliation. Courts assess the adequacy of an investigation rather than its form. Inadequate investigations may expose employers to liability.

Employers in Puerto Rico may establish internal policies, including detailed investigation procedures, timelines, escalation steps, interview protocols, or additional rights afforded to employees during the process. Once adopted, these regulations become binding on the employer, and failure to follow them may support claims of discrimination or unjust dismissal result. Courts treat employee handbooks and internal protocols as part of the employment contract.

Puerto Rico law does not define the burden of proof or degree of proof that must be applied to internal investigations. In practical terms, the applied standard is the preponderance of the evidence, meaning it must be more likely than not that the conduct occurred according to the credibility determinations of the investigator. The reporter must provide the employer with sufficient information and facts to sustain the allegations presented. Once the reporter provides this information, the employer must conduct its own investigation, if warranted, to ensure a safe, harassment-free working environment for the reporter, as well as for the other employee. The employer’s decision must be based on the findings of its investigation, which includes the individuals interviewed and the documents evaluated.

If the internal claim leads to litigation, the plaintiff bears the burden of proof. However, as to the reasonableness of the investigation, the burden of proof ultimately rests with the employer, which must be able to demonstrate that its actions were supported by objective facts and were not arbitrary. The applicable evidentiary standard in related litigation is the preponderance of the evidence, meaning it must be more likely than not that the conduct occurred. In claims of unjust dismissal and retaliation, employees bear the initial burden, such as showing protected activity and adverse action, but the employer must then prove legitimate reasons for the adverse action. Courts generally may defer to an employer’s business judgement when the investigation was well-documented and timely.

Puerto Rico has no statute that specifies when an internal HR investigation must be formally ended. However, laws such as Act 90-2020 (workplace harassment) and Act 17-1988 (sexual harassment) require employers to adopt internal protocols that include investigation steps and conclusions. These obligations create an expectation that employers complete investigations within a reasonable period and gather sufficient information to reach a defensible outcome. If an employer closes an investigation prematurely without interviewing key witnesses, reviewing relevant evidence or issuing a conclusion, courts and administrative agencies may treat the process as inadequate, which can expose the employer to liability for failing to act diligently or knowing of unlawful conduct without taking proper action.

There is no formal legal procedure for closing an internal investigation. In practice, employers document the final determination and inform the reporter and respondent of the general outcome, either orally or in writing. When disciplinary or corrective action will be taken, the communication is typically provided in writing, but doing so is not required. If an investigation is abandoned, the employer usually documents the reasons for closure for its internal records and preserves all materials gathered up to that point.

Puerto Rico law does not require a specific format for the conclusion of an internal investigation. Written reports are standard practice, especially when the allegations involve conduct that may lead to disciplinary action or termination or could result in litigation.

Puerto Rico law does not require a specific format for the conclusion of an internal investigation. However, a written report or similar documentation is widely considered best practice, particularly when the allegations involve conduct that may lead to disciplinary action or termination or could result in litigation. Documenting the findings in writing helps preserve the record so that the employer can apply progressively more severe action if future incidents arise and can support its position in any subsequent litigation.

The parties do not have a right to access the investigation file or the written report. The employer generally provides the reporter and respondent with a summary of the outcome, not the full report. Access to documents may be required later in litigation through formal discovery, but not during the internal process itself unless company policy grants such access. Unionised workplaces may allow access to internal investigations depending on the collective bargaining agreement or union requests.

Employers are not generally required to report the conclusions of an internal investigation to the authorities. However, when the underlying conduct appears to constitute a crime, such as theft, property damage, fraud or other criminal acts, the employer may discretionarily file a complaint with the Puerto Rico Police. In cases involving domestic violence that affects the workplace, Act 54-1989 authorises the employer to request a protective order at the Courts of Puerto Rico on behalf of employees, visitors or others present at the worksite, provided the employer first notifies the affected employee of its intent to do so. Similarly, under Act 284-1999, an employer may request a protective order on behalf of an employee who is or has been a victim of stalking or criminal conduct occurring at or near the workplace, provided the employer first notifies the employee of its intent to seek the order.

Although employers are not required to proactively report investigation results, they may later be compelled to disclose information through subpoenas, court orders or administrative summonses in civil, criminal or agency proceedings. Outside these limited circumstances, communication to authorities remains discretionary and typically occurs only when conduct poses ongoing safety risks or creates potential criminal exposure.

Employers do not typically disclose the conclusion of an internal investigation to individuals beyond the reporter and respondent.

If the allegations are substantiated, employers may impose discipline ranging from oral or written warnings to suspension or termination. However, as established by case law, a single, first-time incident may constitute just cause for termination when the misconduct is serious, including conduct occurring outside the workplace (eg, off-duty criminal behaviour), so long as the employer can demonstrate a legitimate business reason and a defensible factual basis.

It is common for employers in Puerto Rico to implement organisational or preventive measures regardless of whether the allegations are substantiated following an internal investigation. These measures typically include workplace training on topics such as harassment, bullying, professionalism, leadership and effective communication, and the reinforcement of policies and workplace expectations.

Employers are generally allowed to collect personal data for the purpose of conducting an internal HR investigation. However, this power is constrained by Puerto Rico’s Constitution, which affords the right to privacy and human dignity the “highest rank” in the legal system and applies directly in the employment context. As a result, data collection must be proportionate and work-related.

There is no single law that codifies the rules for handling personal data in internal investigations. Instead, employers must align their practices with:

• the constitutional right to privacy and dignity, which protects against accessing purely personal communications or accounts (for example, private email, personal social media, or messages stored on an employee’s personal device);
• laws that regulate particular categories of sensitive information, such as confidentiality requirements for medical information under the Americans with Disabilities Act, protection of Social Security numbers under Act No 207 of September 27, 2006, known as the Act to Prohibit the Display of an Employee’s Social Security Number, 29 L.P.R.A. § 621a, and restrictions on requesting or using credit reports under Act No 150 of October 8, 2019, known as the Employee Credit Information Protection Act, 29 L.P.R.A. § 1411 et seq.; and
• statutory duties under workplace laws such as Act 17-1988 (harassment) and Act 90-2020 (workplace harassment) to investigate and correct misconduct while preserving confidentiality.

Puerto Rico does not recognise a legal right for employees to access personal data collected during an internal HR investigation, unless the employer has established an internal policy that provides such access. Employers may share limited information on a need-to-know basis to ensure fairness, such as explaining the nature of the allegations and discussing relevant policy violations. However, employers may restrict access when necessary to protect confidentiality, prevent retaliation or preserve the integrity of the investigation, or for any other legitimate reason. Witness statements, internal notes, preliminary assessments and privileged communications are typically withheld. If litigation later arises, access to certain records may occur through formal discovery.

AI is not yet widely used in internal investigations in Puerto Rico, and there is no specific regulation or legislation governing its use in any context. Despite the absence of formal rules, some employers occasionally rely on AI-enabled tools.

Because there is no statutory framework, employers must rely on Puerto Rico’s broad constitutional privacy protections when deploying AI. Concerns may arise when algorithms generate biased or discriminatory results, capture information beyond the scope of the investigation, or compromise confidentiality. The use of AI may also increase the risk of collecting data that is unnecessary or overly intrusive, which may conflict with the expectations of privacy and human dignity recognised under Puerto Rico’s Constitution.

Employers remain responsible for verifying the accuracy of AI-generated outputs, correcting errors, providing human review and making final factual findings. They must also ensure that any technology used is consistent with confidentiality obligations that apply in Puerto Rico workplaces.

Puerto Rico provides explicit whistle-blower protections through several statutes, with the most broad and important being Act No 115 of December 20, 1991, as amended, known as the Retaliation Against Employees for Testifying before a Legislative, Administrative, or Judicial Forum Act, 29 L.P.R.A. § 194 et seq. (“Act 115-1991”), and Act No 80-1976. Together, they create a broad framework that protects employees who report wrongdoing, provide information during internal investigations, or participate in administrative or judicial proceedings.

Act 115-1991 protects employees who offer, or intend to offer, information, testimony or expressions, orally or in writing, before a legislative, administrative or judicial forum in Puerto Rico or through an internal procedure established by the employer. This includes co-operation with investigations by agencies, such as the Department of Labor and Human Resources, law enforcement, or internal reports or inquiries. Whistle-blowing under this statute therefore encompasses reporting of violations, participating in hearings, co-operating with regulators, and providing documentation relevant to an inquiry. Protection applies as long as the employee’s expressions are not defamatory and do not disclose privileged information as established by law.

Act 115-1991 adopts a broad definition of employee covering any person who provides services in exchange for wages or any type of compensation under an oral, written, explicit or implicit contract. Courts have interpreted this definition liberally, extending protections to workers in traditional employment relationships, probationary employees, and individuals whose work arrangements involve mixed remuneration or informal agreements.

Act 80-1976 reinforces these protections by specifically prohibiting termination of an employee who participates in or provides information in investigations. This makes whistle-blower termination a form of unjust termination under Puerto Rico law and entitles the employee to reinstatement and back pay, including benefits, from the date of dismissal to the date the court orders reinstatement.

Act 17-1988 provides Puerto Rico’s specific statutory protections for sexual harassment allegations. The statute defines sexual harassment as any unwelcome sexual advance, request for sexual favours, or verbal, physical or electronic conduct of a sexual nature when: (i) submission is made explicitly or implicitly a condition of employment; (ii) submission or rejection is used as the basis for employment decisions; or (iii) the conduct unreasonably interferes with work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment. These protections apply broadly to employees, job applicants, interns, volunteers, visitors, contractors, and any individual within the statutory definition of “employee”.

Act 17-1988 requires employers to maintain a workplace free of sexual harassment, adopt a written policy, educate employees and implement an internal complaint procedure. Protected situations include harassment by supervisors, co-workers or third parties, and conduct occurring in person or through electronic means such as messaging apps or social media. Employers must accept oral, written or anonymous complaints and investigate “real suspicion” rumours, ensuring confidentiality and protection against retaliation.

Recent amendments strengthened these protections by mandating adoption of a compliant protocol based on the Model Sexual Harassment Protocol published by the Department of Labor and Human Resources. These amendments standardised required content, such as multiple reporting channels, prompt investigation timelines, confidentiality safeguards and anti-retaliation measures, and expanded reporting access through the government’s electronic complaint portal. Together, these changes increased uniformity across workplaces and reinforced employers’ duty to promptly investigate when sexual harassment is alleged, document their findings and implement corrective action.

Puerto Rico provides specific statutory protections for allegations of both discrimination and workplace harassment. Act 90-2020 defines workplace harassment as malicious, unwanted, repetitive, abusive, arbitrary, unreasonable or capricious conduct, whether oral, written or physical, carried out by the employer, supervisors, agents, employees or even third parties, that is unrelated to legitimate business interests and impairs an employee’s constitutional rights, such as dignity, reputation, privacy or health. The conduct must create an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive work environment that interferes with a reasonable person’s ability to perform their job.

All employees are covered and the definition applies across all hierarchical levels. The statute provides a non-exhaustive list of prohibited behaviours, such as public humiliation, hostile comments, unjustified threats of dismissal, repeated frivolous disciplinary complaints and disproportionate work assignments, while clarifying that legitimate supervisory actions are not considered bullying.

Employers must adopt and disseminate an internal protocol, provide training and investigate all allegations of workplace bullying, including oral complaints. They must also protect reporters and witnesses from retaliation. The internal protocol must designate reporting channels, include an alternative recipient in case the primary contact is implicated, ensure confidentiality, and set out the investigative steps and timelines. No legislative amendments have been enacted in the past year, but enforcement expectations remain strict, and failure to follow statutory procedures or internal protocols frequently gives rise to litigation.

In terms of discrimination, Act No 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended (29 L.P.R.A. §146), known as the Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Act (“Act 100-1959”), is Puerto Rico’s combined counterpart to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Act 100-1959 provides that any employer that discharges, suspends, demotes or reduces the salary of any employee on the basis of age; race; colour; sex; sexual orientation; gender identity; social or national origin; social condition; political affiliation; political or religious beliefs; status as a victim of domestic violence, sexual assault or stalking; or military service; or for having protective hairstyles or hair textures commonly associated with specific racial and national origin identities, whether the individual is an employee or job applicant, shall be subject to severe financial liability and may also be found guilty of a misdemeanour.

While there have been no statutory amendments in the past year, litigation trends underscore the importance of compliance, as courts continue to closely examine whether employers respond promptly and appropriately to workplace harassment and discrimination complaints.

There is no specific statutory procedure that employers must follow when handling allegations that involve potential criminal conduct. However, employers do have a general duty to maintain a safe and healthy workplace free from foreseeable risks, violence and hazards. This duty flows from occupational safety principles, Puerto Rico’s Constitution and administrative regulations under PR OSHA. As a result, criminal allegations require employers to consider reporting the matter to the Puerto Rico Police and taking additional steps to protect employees.

If formal criminal charges are filed, employers are expected to co-operate with law enforcement, but they still retain responsibility for determining appropriate workplace action, which may include disciplinary measures or termination, based on the evidence available.

Employers are free to conduct multi-jurisdictional investigations but must localise their methods to avoid violating procedural norms unique to each jurisdiction. While Puerto Rico imposes no special procedures or prohibitions on foreign employers conducting investigations in the jurisdiction, they must respect local rights to privacy and human dignity, including limits on data collection and preserving confidentiality.

Puerto Rico employers conducting investigations abroad must likewise comply with the foreign jurisdiction’s rules, which may include specific notice obligations to employees, prescribe particular investigative steps, grant employees additional rights during interviews, or restrict how evidence may be collected or used. Key considerations include co-ordinating with local HR teams, managing cultural and language differences, and ensuring that investigative steps taken in one jurisdiction do not create liability under another.