29 P.R. Laws Ann. § 146

For age-discrimination claims, Law 100 places the ultimate burden of proving discrimination on the plaintiff, and its merits are coterminous with the ADEA.

Rivera Rodríguez v. Sears Roebuck De Puerto Rico, Inc. · filed 2005-12-23

Rivera's claims under P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146, also known as "Law 100," and P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 194a, also known as "Law 115," were also properly dismissed. While Law 100 and the ADEA allocate the burdens of proof in different ways, see Alvarez-Fonseca v. Pepsi-Cola of P.R. Bottling Co., 152 F.3d 17, 27 (1st Cir. 1998), "the burden of proof on the ultimate issue of discrimination remains with the plaintiff" in both causes of action, id. at 28. See also Gonzales v. El Dia, Inc., 304 F.3d 63, 73 n.7 (1st Cir. 2002) ("[T]he merits of the age-discrimination claims asserted under the ADEA and Law 100 are coterminous." (citation omitted)).

Section 146 makes an employer civilly liable for discharging or discriminating against an employee because of age.

Al De ARTEAGA, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. PALL ULTRAFINE FILTRATION CORPORATION, Defendant, Appellee · filed 1988-12-15

Under sec. 1 of Law 100, P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 (1985), an employer who discharges or discriminates against an employee on the basis of age incurs civil liability.

After the employer shows good cause, a Law 100 plaintiff must rebut that showing and prove that the discharge was actually motivated by discrimination.

Torres-Segui v. YRC, Inc. · filed 2022-09-28

Thus, Torres must rebut his employer’s showing of good cause to prevail on a Law 80 claim, and he must demonstrate that the discharge was actually motivated by discrimination to prevail on a Law 100 claim.

Section 146 does not cover political-discrimination suits against the Puerto Rico government or authorize double damages against officials in their official or individual capacities when they are not the plaintiffs' employer.

Jusino v. Carmen Sonia Zayas, Etc. · filed 1989-06-01

The assignment of error has undeniable merit. Recently, a panel of this court, after considering the same two statutes in a materially identical context, concluded that neither law was intended to cover political discrimination suits against the government of Puerto Rico or to permit official-capacity commonwealth actors to be held liable for double damages. ... Finally, we disposed of any basis for claims against defendants in their individual capacities, pointing out that “damages are not available under the statute against defendant in her personal capacity because as such she was not plaintiffs’ ‘employer’ ”. ... Therefore, the award of double damages under local law must be reversed.

Section 146's doubling of base compensatory damages is mandatory rather than discretionary.

Baralt v. Nationwide Mutual Insurance · filed 2000-02-23(a)

The doubling of base compensatory damages under Act No. 100 is not discretionary.

Section 146(a)(1)'s doubled damages are compensatory rather than a penalty barred by FIRREA, so the Law 100 claim was not dismissed on that ground.

Font-Llacer-De-Pueyo v. Federal Deposit Insurance · filed 2013-03-25(a)(1)

Because this court is bound by the First Circuit’s interpretation of the compensatory nature of the damages award provision of Law No. 100, we must DENY the FDIC-R’s request that this claim be dismissed.

Section 146 discrimination claims may be released in a valid settlement; the court held that these employees' releases were valid settlements of their Law 100 claims.

Cabán Hernández v. Philip Morris USA, Inc. · filed 2007-05-01

In point of fact, the Puerto Rico courts have explicitly given their imprimatur to releases of employment discrimination claims. ... As a theoretical matter, then, a release of Law 100 claims is authorized under the law of Puerto Rico. ... Thus, the releases were valid settlements of the Law 100 claims.

A Law 100 employment-discrimination claim survives the employee's death and may be pursued by substituted plaintiffs.

Vaello-Carmona v. Siemens Medical Solutions USA, Inc. · filed 2015-03-17

Therefore, we hold that Vaello-Carmona's Law 100 and Law 44 claims survive his death, and the district court erred when it denied appellants' motion to substitute themselves as plaintiffs.

When a jury award is allocated to Puerto Rico law claims, the § 146(a)(1) back-pay component is doubled.

Gonzalez-Carpio · filed 2025-12-08(a)(1)

the back pay award under Puerto Rico law is doubled to $129,998.

Section 146 claims are subject to a one-year limitations period that begins when the employee learns of the termination, and an extrajudicial claim tolls that period only if it specifically seeks the relief later requested in the lawsuit.

Juan A. Damiani Montalban, Ivelisse Vazquez De Damiani, and the Conjugal Partnership Composed by Both v. Puerto Rico Mar · filed 1993-05-19

On March 10, 1989, Damiani became aware that he would be terminated, therefore the statute of limitations for any claim of damages under § 146 then began to run. ... Damiani's statements did not evidence an urgent decision to obtain payment for damages under § 146. ... Damiani's statements did not toll the one year statute of limitations. Dismissal was required as a matter of law.

Section 146 discrimination claims accrued when the employer made its termination decision known, rather than when the plaintiff later sought reinstatement, and the limitations period was not tolled while he received disability benefits.

Iglesias v. Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York · filed 1996-02-07

Plaintiff has moved the Court to reconsider its prior dismissal of the discrimination claims asserted pursuant to P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 (1985), Law 100 of June 30, 1959; 42 U.S.C. § 2000e, Title YII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621 et seq. (ADEA) as time-barred. ... Thus, we find that there is no basis for finding that the discrimination claims were somehow tolled during the period plaintiff was receiving disability insurance benefits and that .the actions accrued when he reapplied for his manager position.

Law 100 claims under § 146 et seq. are subject to a one-year limitations period, accrue when the employee becomes aware of the adverse personnel action, and have that period suspended during qualifying administrative proceedings after notice to the employer.

Reyes-Ortiz v. Valdes · filed 2010-03-22

The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has held that the one-year statute of limitations found in Article 1868 of the Puerto Rico Civil Code applies to Law 100 claims. ... A cause of action under Law 100 accrues on the date that the employee becomes aware of the adverse personnel action either through notification by the employer, ... or the effectuation of the decision. ... Additionally, the filing of a claim with the Anti-Discrimination Unit of the Puerto Rico Department of Labor constitutes an extrajudicial claim. ... Once the plaintiff has filed the claim and notified the employer-defendant of its filing, the one-year prescriptive period is suspended throughout the duration of the administrative proceedings and until the employer-defendant is notified of the agency’s decision.

A claim against one jointly liable party tolls the one-year limitations period for related Law 100 claims against the other jointly liable parties.

Cintron-Alonso v. GSA Caribbean Corp. · filed 2009-03-18

Under Puerto Rico law, a claim against one jointly liable party tolls the statute of limitations against the others. ... Therefore, this Court finds that the one year statute of limitations for the above-mentioned Commonwealth law claims was effectively tolled against Gordils and Serrano.

Law 100 does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies before an employment-discrimination suit.

Lopez-Machin v. Indupro · filed 2009-11-10

Law 100 does not include compulsory administrative remedies as a prerequisite for bringing a cause of action.

Law 100 claims have a one-year limitations period that is tolled by a timely administrative discrimination charge after notice to the employer.

Oquendo v. Costco Wholesale Corporation · filed 2020-04-07

Once the plaintiff has filed such a claim and has notified the employer-defendant of its filing, the one-year statute of limitations under Law 100 is tolled throughout the duration of the administrative proceedings and until the employer-defendant is notified of the agency’s decision.

Section 146 (Law 100) prohibits employment discrimination on enumerated grounds but does not cover discrimination based on physical or mental handicap.

Iris v. Rivera-Flores v. Puerto Rico Telephone Company · filed 1995-11-28

In 1959, the Puerto Rico Legislature enacted Law 100 (codified at P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, §§ 146, 147, 147a, 148, 149), which prohibited employment discrimination based on age, gender, race, color, social or national origin, social condition, or religion, and permitted persons who were subjected to such discrimination to bring tort claims for damages. However, Law 100 made no mention of employment discrimination based on physical or mental handicap. ... Law 53 does not suggest in any way that the Legislature intended in 1959 that victims of handicap discrimination were protected by Law 100, nor that it intended in 1985 that such victims would have a private cause of action for damages under Law 44.

Section 146 prohibits discrimination based on religious ideology.

Rojas v. GMD Airlines Services, Inc. · filed 2015-09-09

Law 100 prohibits discrimination on account of several protected characteristics, including “religious ideology.”

Section 146 (Law 100) broadly prohibits employment discrimination, and its hostile-work-environment claim is essentially analyzed like a Title VII claim; the ultimate burden remains on the plaintiff.

Cerezo-Martin v. Agroman · filed 2016-10-04

“Law 100 is a broad antidis-crimination statute analogous to Title VII in many respects.” ... While Law 100 employs different presumptions and burdens of proof than Title VII, “the burden of proof on the ultimate issue remains with the plaintiff in both causes of action.” ... “Nevertheless, a hostile work environment claim pursuant to Law 100 remains viable. Courts in this district have held that hostile work environment claims brought pursuant to Law 100 are “essentially the same as a Title VII hostile work environment claim.” ... Because the Court has determined that plaintiff’s Title VII hostile work environment claim should proceed to trial, defendant’s motion for summary judgment with respect to that claim’s Law 100 counterpart is also DENIED.”

Section 146 prohibits employment discrimination because of age or sexual orientation, but its sexual-orientation protection does not cover discrimination based solely on a romantic partner's litigious conduct.

Villeneuve v. Avon Products, Inc. · filed 2019-03-19

Among other things, Law 100 prohibits discrimination in employment because of age or sexual orientation. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146. ... But an employee's being in an affectionate relationship with a lawyer who has sued the employer simply is not a protected class under the statute.

Section 146 prohibits adverse employment actions based on age.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Cardoza-Rodriguez · filed 1998-01-07

In pertinent part, Law 100 forbids adverse employment actions based on any one of several protected characteristics, including age. ... Therefore, in the context of a constructive discharge, the date the employee elects to retire triggers the Law 100 limitation period.

A Law 100 age-discrimination plaintiff must show an actual or constructive discharge before the claim can proceed.

Lopez-Rosario v. Programa Seasonal Head Start/Early Head Start de la Diocesis de Mayaguez · filed 2017-03-29

Here, as analyzed above, plaintiffs have failed to establish that plaintiff Lopez-Rosario was actually or constructively discharged.

Section 146 allows an age discrimination claim to proceed when the evidence could show that age was a motivating factor in the employer’s decision.

Morales v. Venegas Construction Corp. · filed 2015-04-30

In light of the more plaintiff-friendly burden of proof under Law 100, plaintiffs’ evidence of age discrimination discussed in reference to his ADEA claim is also sufficient to create a jury issue as to whether age was a motivating factor in defendant’s decision to terminate him, in violation of Law 100.

Section 146 prohibits age discrimination in employment; a claim fails when the evidence does not support an inference of age animus.

Erazo-Vazquez v. State Industrial Products Corporation · filed 2021-08-31

Law 100 prohibits discrimination in employment because of various characteristics, including age. See, P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 (setting forth prohibition). ... In consequence, as with the ADEA claim, plaintiff’s Law 100 claim must be dismissed.

Section 146 prohibits sex discrimination by employers and provides for civil liability and damages.

Rodriguez-Hernandez v. Miranda-Velez · filed 1998-01-06

Puerto Rico's Law 100 forbids sex discrimination by employers, and provides for civil liability and damages. See P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 (1995).

Law 100 treats sexual harassment as a form of sex discrimination.

García v. Sprint PCS Caribe · filed 2012-01-05

The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico has held that sexual harassment constitutes a kind of sexual discrimination shunned by Law 100.

A sex-discrimination claim under Law 100 may proceed to trial when a reasonable jury could find that the employer took an adverse action because of the employee's sex or pregnancy.

Mercado-Reyes v. City of Angels, Inc. · filed 2018-06-26

A reasonable jury could find Mercado's testimony credible and determine that VHC discharged her on the basis of her sex and pregnancy, violating her rights pursuant to Title VII, Law 3, and Law 100.

Law 100 excludes nonprofit government instrumentalities from its coverage; government agencies and instrumentalities are covered only when functioning as private businesses or enterprises.

Dogson v. University of Puerto Rico · filed 1998-09-30

However, Law 100 does not apply to nonprofit government instrumentalities as is the U.P.R. Defendant is a government instrumentality. It does not operate as a private business or enterprise. Only government agencies and in-strumentalities functioning as "private businesses or enterprises” are within the scope of Law 100.

Section 146 (Law 100) does not apply to municipalities or municipal employees.

Rios v. Municipality of Guaynabo · filed 2013-04-12

It is well settled that Law 100 applies neither to municipalities, ... nor to “municipal employees.” ... Accordingly, the defendants are entitled to summary judgment on this score. Montalvo’s Law 100 claims are therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.

Law 100 does not apply to municipalities or municipal employees.

Acevedo-Torres v. Municipality of Arecibo · filed 2012-04-25

Notwithstanding Plaintiffs allegations against Defendant, Law 100 does not apply to municipalities or municipal employees.

Law 100 does not apply to nonprofit government instrumentalities such as the University of Puerto Rico.

Caez v. Universidad de Puerto Rico · filed 2023-07-11

Moreover, as to claims pursuant to Law 100, it is settled that “Law 100 does not apply to non-profit government instrumentalities as is the U.P.R.”

Law 100's employment-discrimination protections require an employment relationship with the defendant.

Kalkey v. Euromodas, Inc. · filed 2023-12-11

Thus, the Law 100 claim against Norte and Oeste must be dismissed.

A public corporation that is not an arm of the state can qualify as an employer under Law 100, so the § 146 claim may proceed against it.

Velez-Acevedo v. Centro de Cancer de La Universidad de Puerto Rico · filed 2021-07-02

Accordingly, Defendants’ request to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Law No. 100 claim is DENIED.

Section 146 imposes civil liability on employers who discriminate against employees, but does not impose damages on supervisors or agents individually.

Berrios v. Squibb · filed 1999-04-26

In its remedies section, Law 100 states that “any employer who ... discriminates against an employee regarding his salary, wage, pay or remuneration, terms, rank, conditions, or privileges of his work, ... or who limits ... his employees in any manner which tends to deprive a person of employment opportunities, or to affect his status as employee, on the basis of age, ... race, color, sex, or national origin, or social position ... shall incur civil liability. ..P.R.Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146. In applying this section, the decisions of this District hold that Law 100 does not provide for the imposition of damages on supervisors or agents of employers.

In the fraudulent-joinder context, § 146 permits a reasonable prediction that individual defendants may be liable for age-discrimination claims, without definitively resolving the statute's scope.

Bonilla-Perez v. Citibank NA, Inc. · filed 2012-09-25

The Court instead determines that, pursuant to the clear consensus among courts in this district, there is a reasonable basis for predicting that the Law 100 might impose liability against the Individual Defendants. Put another way, the defendants cannot shoulder their burden of showing that Bonilla has no reasonable basis exists to establish the Individual Defendants’ liability on his Law 100 claims. Under such circumstances, there is no fraudulent joinder, and removal is inappropriate, because the lack of complete diversity divests this court of subject-matter jurisdiction.

Law 100 permits personal-capacity suits against individuals only when they are employees of a covered entity within the statute's scope.

Pizarro-Correa v. Puerto Rico Internal Revenue Department · filed 2017-07-31

Because Cardona is employed by an entity that is not covered pursuant to Law 100, he cannot be held individually liable.

Section 146 permits individual employee liability for workplace sexual harassment and prohibits sex-based hostile work environments.

Maldonado-Cátala v. Municipality of Naranjito · filed 2015-10-26

However, under Puerto Rico Law 17, Law 69, and Law 100, there is individual employee liability for workplace sexual harassment. ... Law 100, Law 17, and Law 69 each prohibit a sex-based hostile work environment. ... Thus summary judgment is denied on these state law claims against all defendants.

Law 100 does not impose liability on a government official in a personal capacity when the official was not the plaintiff's employer.

Educadores Puertorriqueños v. Hernandez · filed 2007-08-28

With respect to the claims asserted against Mr. Rey in his personal capacity, it is clear that this defendant was not plaintiffs’ “employer” and therefore, not subject to liability under this statute.

Law 100 permits individual liability for hostile-work-environment acts that a supervisor can personally commit, but not for employment decisions reserved to the employer.

Villamia v. MVP Auto Group, Inc. · filed 2020-01-15

This allegation, like sexual harassment, is something that any person can cause regardless of the degree of control or authority they hold.

Section 146 permits liability against an employer’s agent for the agent’s own discriminatory acts, but not merely for participating in events driven by another person’s sex-based animus.

Loranca v. Aerostar Airport Holdings, LLC · filed 2023-03-31

Moreover, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court has made it clear that agents and employees may be liable under Laws 69 and 100 only “for their own acts.” Nieves Santiago, at 379, ECF No. 162-1 at 6 (emphasis added).23 Ergo, plaintiff’s makeshift conspiracy argument is untenable under Puerto Rico employment law.

Law 100's age-discrimination standard is substantially the same as the ADEA's, so claims under it may be evaluated under the same federal analytical principles.

Mojica v. El Conquistador Resort & Golden Door Spa · filed 2010-05-13

Because the analysis is practically the same under both federal and Puerto Rico law, Plaintiff chose to develop his arguments under the federal standards and case law. The Court agrees that the analytical principles are substantially the same and in the interest of judicial efficiency, does not analyze the claims separately under Puerto Rico law. Summary judgment, therefore, is also denied for Plaintiffs local law claims under Law 100 and Law 115.

On the merits, an age-discrimination claim under Law 100 is analyzed alongside the ADEA and fails for the same evidentiary reasons.

Ortiz v. Becton Dickinson Caribe, Ltd. · filed 2013-09-13

Therefore, Plaintiffs Law 100 claim fails for the same reasons her ADEA claim fails.

An age-discrimination claim under Law 100 is coterminous on the merits with an ADEA claim, so it fails when the plaintiff cannot make the ADEA prima facie showing.

Rivera-Rivera v. Medina & Medina, Inc. · filed 2017-01-11

her age discrimination claims under Law 100 must also fail.

A Law 100 age-discrimination claim fails when the record contains no direct or indirect evidence that age was a factor in the adverse employment action.

Alemay-Rivera · filed 2025-10-15

The Court has nonetheless conducted a review of the record and agrees with the magistrate judge’s reasoning as to why these claims should be denied.

Section 146 prohibits employment discrimination based on sex, and a sex-discrimination claim under it may survive summary judgment when the evidence creates a genuine dispute over whether the termination was discriminatory.

Loranca v. Aerostar Airport Holdings, LLC · filed 2022-05-17

Even if the Court were to find that defendants met their burden, as discussed for purposes of the Title VII discrimination and retaliation claims, plaintiff has direct evidence which creates genuine dispute as to whether the non-discriminating reason was the justification for the adverse employment action or if it was illegal discrimination. ... For the same reasons, the Court denies defendants’ request for summary disposition of plaintiff’s claims under Laws 69, 100, 115. See Ríos v. Municipality of Guaynabo, 938 F. Supp. 2d 235, 258 (D.P.R. 2013)(“the Court would deny the defendants' request for summary judgment on [plaintiff]'s Law… 69, and 100 claims, precisely for the same reasons that the Court denied the defendant's summary judgment on [plaintiff]'s Title VII [] claim.”).

Section 146 prohibits employment discrimination based on characteristics including sex.

Pedraza-Melendez v. Ethicon Johnson & Johnson · filed 2023-03-31

Law 100 prohibits discrimination in employment because of various characteristics, including sex. ... As discussed previously in connection with Title VII, there is insufficient evidence for a reasonable fact finder to uncover any genuine issue of material fact relating to plaintiff’s sex discrimination claim. The record shows that the Company acted with legitimate grounds reasonably linked to the proper operation of the employer’s business, not with sex animus. In consequence, as with the Title VII claim, plaintiff’s Law 100 claim must be dismissed.

Section 146 prohibits private-sector employers from discriminating against employees because of their religious beliefs.

Rosario-Velazquez v. Corporacion Educativa Ramon Barquin · filed 2024-07-24

Title VII and Law 100 bar employers from discriminating against employees because of their religion or religious beliefs. See, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 (Title VII); P.R. Laws Ann. tit. 29, § 146 (Law 100). Discrimination claims under Law 100 are subject “to the same analysis” as those under Title VII. Grafals-Semidei v. JetBlue Airways Corp., 2022 WL 18861858, *3 (D.P.R. Jul. 26, 2022). ... In these conditions, the Title VII, Law 100, and Law 115 claims must be dismissed.