The Puerto Rico Supreme Court ruled on Jan. 27, 2026, that courts must compel arbitration of Puerto Rico Anti-Discrimination Act (Act 100) discrimination claims whenever a valid arbitration agreement triggers the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) — even when the employee sues individually.

The unanimous decision in Tucker v. Money Group, LLC y Otros, 2026 T.S.P.R. 9, lets employers with arbitration clauses affecting interstate commerce require individual workers to pursue sex discrimination, retaliation and related statutory claims through a private arbitrator rather than in local courts. The ruling narrows a 22-year-old carve-out and reshapes how HR leaders on the island review employment contracts.

What did the court decide?

The Puerto Rico high court rejected the employee's attempt to bypass an arbitration clause and litigate her Act 100 sex-discrimination claim in court.

The worker had signed a private employment agreement requiring "all disputes" tied to her job to go to arbitration in Puerto Rico. She led an outreach-center business unit that engaged consumers across multiple U.S. states — a connection the court treated as decisive. After termination she filed suit for:

• Unjust dismissal under Act 80
• Sex discrimination under Act 100
• Retaliation under Act 115

She argued Article 4 of Act 100 preserved trial-court jurisdiction and pointed to Quiñones González v. Asociación, 161 DPR 668 (2004), as authority for going to court.

The Supreme Court rejected both arguments. Because the employer's operations and the employee's duties affected interstate commerce, the FAA governed. Once the FAA applies, the court held, any local statute or interpretation that disfavors arbitration is preempted, and courts must enforce arbitration agreements "according to their terms."

How does this change the Quiñones exception?

The court drew a sharp line between collectively bargained and individually negotiated arbitration.

Quiñones had let unionized employees litigate statutory discrimination claims in court because arbitration in that setting sits inside a negotiated labor framework, the court explained. Tucker extended that rationale no further: a worker who signs an individual employment contract is bound by its arbitration clause when the FAA attaches.

The practical effect: the Quiñones escape valve now operates only for employees covered by collective bargaining agreements, not for the rank-and-file staff who populate most Puerto Rico workplaces.

What should employers on the island do now?

Jackson Lewis, the management-side firm whose attorneys wrote the analysis, said the ruling "underscores the importance of careful drafting of arbitration agreements." The firm told clients to assess whether employment agreements can be read as affecting interstate commerce and to build arbitration provisions that survive FAA scrutiny.

For HR and in-house counsel, that translates to a checklist:

• Confirm the arbitration clause references interstate activities, multi-state operations or out-of-state commerce.
• Verify delegation language, mutuality and consideration terms meet FAA enforceability standards.
• Map which job functions cross state lines, since the Tucker employee's outreach-center role — covering consumers in multiple U.S. states — supplied the interstate hook the court relied on.
• Update onboarding documents and severance releases to preserve arbitration rights.

The Puerto Rico court's narrowing of Quiñones is likely to set the framework for the next wave of arbitration challenges in 2026, especially as more island employers expand remote and multi-state operations.