On January 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico had the opportunity to address the "national origin" protected category under the anti-discrimination provisions of Puerto Rico Act No. 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended ("Act 100"). In Roberto Jiménez Soto v. Carolina Catering Corp. (Sky Caterers), the Court held that this category does not include discrimination based on the employee's citizenship or immigration status.
The plaintiff, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and a U.S. legal permanent resident, filed suit against his employer after being terminated from employment following the expiration of his permanent residence card (green card). According to the plaintiff, his employer unlawfully terminated him due to his national origin because he was perceived and treated as an illegal immigrant. The employer, in turn, alleged that because the plaintiff failed to present a renewed green card, as required by airport security regulations in order to gain access to his workplace, his termination was appropriate.
In addressing the controversy, the Court defined the term national origin as the place where an individual is born or from which his ancestors originated but does not include either migratory or citizenship status.
The PR Supreme Court reaffirmed that, following the McDonnell Douglas framework,1 the plaintiff carries the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination. Specifically, the plaintiff must demonstrate: (a) membership in a protected group; (b) qualification for the job; (c) termination from the position, and (d) that the employer sought to replace him with someone with similar qualifications. In this case, the Court found that the plaintiff failed to prove intentional discrimination based on national origin. The Court reasoned that the plaintiff's termination was not motivated by his country of origin, nor by any physical, cultural, or linguistic characteristics associated to his national origin. Rather, the Court concluded that the employer had justified its decision exclusively on the basis of the employee's migration status.
Additionally, while the Court acknowledged that the plaintiff's termination for having an expired permanent residence card might be deemed improper under the anti-discrimination provisions of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 ("IRCA"), it did not constitute unlawful or discriminatory conduct based on national origin under Act 100.
Furthermore, in addressing the controversy, the Court stated that courts may consider the "same actor inference" doctrine. This doctrine suggests that if the person who hired an employee is also the one who terminated the employee, in a relatively short period, then it is less likely that discriminatory intent was involved.
In view of the burden-shifting framework established by McDonnell Douglas, and the application of the same actor rule, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a discriminatory purpose or effect against him on the basis of national origin.
Footnote
1. This burden-shifting framework was established in the U.S. Supreme Court case McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
