Puerto Rico Supreme Court Clarifies Limits for Unjustified Dismissal Under the Workers' Compensation Act

On June 26, 2025, the Puerto Rico Supreme Court (PRSC) issued an opinion in Méndez Ruiz v. Techno Plastics Industries, Inc., 216 D.P.R. ____, 2025 TSPR 68 (2025), determining whether the defendant had “just cause” under Puerto Rico’s Unjustified Dismissal Act, Act No. 80 of May 30, 1976, as amended (“Act 80”), to terminate a worker that suffered a relapse of her condition that required her to return to the State Insurance Fund Corporation (“CFSE,” by its Spanish acronym) for additional medical treatment after the expiration of the job reserve period.  Specifically, the Court examined the circumstances where a worker (i) reported her workplace accident to the CFSE; (ii) was reinstated within the applicable job protection/reserve period; (iii) continued working actively and uninterruptedly for the employer for several years; and (iv) then suffered a relapse or worsening of the condition that required her to return to CFSE for additional medical treatment after the job reserve period had expired. After analyzing the totality of the circumstances, and based on public policy, the PRSC held that the worker was wrongfully terminated. 

On July 10, 2018, plaintiff-appellee Silmarie Méndez Ruiz (“Méndez”) suffered a workplace accident, which required her to report to the CFSE. After being evaluated, the CFSE placed her on rest until July 21, 2018, and thereafter, on July 22, 2018, released her to continue medical treatment while working (“C.T.”). Subsequently, the CFSE evaluated Méndez several times pursuant to which Méndez was either placed on rest or in C.T. 

By July 6, 2019, the date on which the applicable one-year job reserve would expire, Méndez was already working for the defendant company (“the Company” or “appellant”) with CFSE authorization under C.T. According to the PRSC’s opinion, Méndez worked uninterruptedly for the Company from January 28, 2019, until February 10, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the CFSE re-evaluated Méndez and determined that she should once again be placed on rest until May 1, 2021, and be released on C.T. beginning on May 2, 2021. On April 26, 2021, however, the Company terminated Méndez from her job under the premise that the one-year job reserve had elapsed in its entirety. 

Méndez filed a claim against the Company for unjustified dismissal under Act 80, discrimination under Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Act, Act No. 100 of June 30, 1959, as amended and the Act to Prohibit Discrimination Against Persons with Physical, Mental, or Sensory Disabilities, Act No. 44 of July 2, 1985, and under the Workers’ Compensation Act, Act No. 45 of April 18, 1935, as amended (“Act 45”). 

The Puerto Rico Court of First Instance (“CFI”) held that Méndez’ termination was unjustified because the Company failed to comply with Article 5-A of Act 45, which imposes on the employer the obligation to reserve the job previously held by a worker who suffers a workplace accident or occupational illness that renders the worker unable to work, for a period of 12 months (provided it is an employer with 16 or more employees) and to reinstate them to the same provided certain factors are met. The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI’s decision. Consequently, the Company appealed to the PRSC arguing, among other things, that the lower courts erred by failing to apply prior precedent regarding Act 45 under similar sets of facts. 

According to the PRSC’s opinion, the prevalent judicial doctrine was based on Torres v. Star Kist Caribe, Inc., 134 D.P.R. 1024, (1994). The PRSC explained that in Torres, the job reserve period had expired without the employee’s having been released to return to work by the CFSE. At that time, the prevailing legal standard did not equate authorization to work while receiving medical treatment with a final medical discharge. Under that scenario, the job reserve expired without the employer-defendant being required to reinstate the employee. 

The PRSC reasoned that Torres was distinguishable as Méndez was released to return to work and reinstated to her position by the Company before the expiration of the job reserve period. Moreover, the PRSC held that since Méndez was reinstated by the Company prior to the expiration of the job reserve and worked for the following two years actively and uninterruptedly, the Company could not invoke Article 5-A of Act 45 as a justification to terminate her simply because she had suffered a relapse after the job reserve expired.  The PRSC stated that, although not all cases are the same and at times the facts demand a different approach, given the totality of the circumstances of the case and the public policy at the time, reporting back to the CFSE for additional medical treatment due to a relapse after the expiration of the job reserve by itself, does not constitute just cause for dismissal.