The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals recently ruled in favor of Bridge Security Services, Inc. and the University of Puerto Rico (UPR) in a discrimination case brought by Ricardo Hernández Rossy. The court upheld a lower court's decision to dismiss Hernández's claims of workplace retaliation and discrimination based on his appearance, specifically regarding his painted nails. The ruling affects employees in similar situations and clarifies the definition of employer-employee relationships in labor disputes.
This case, officially known as Ricardo Hernández Rossy v. Bridge Security Services, Inc. Y Otros, was filed on May 19, 2026, under docket number TA2026AP00353. The court's decision was made by a panel consisting of Judge Domínguez Irizarry, Judge Cruz Hiraldo, and Judge Sánchez Báez, with Judge Cruz Hiraldo serving as the lead opinion writer.
Background
The dispute began on November 2, 2020, when Hernández filed a lawsuit against Bridge Security Services and UPR, alleging workplace discrimination and retaliation. He claimed that he faced repercussions for wearing black nail polish while working as a security guard at UPR's Bayamón campus. Hernández argued that he was treated differently than his female colleagues, who were allowed to wear nail polish.
According to Hernández, he was ordered to remove the nail polish by his supervisor at Bridge Security, which he did under protest. He also alleged that he was required to pay for a COVID-19 test to return to work, further claiming that these actions constituted retaliation for his refusal to comply with the nail polish request. Hernández sought damages for emotional distress, unpaid wages, and other claims related to his treatment at work.
The Ruling
The Court of Appeals confirmed the lower court's summary judgment in favor of the defendants, stating that Hernández was not an employee of UPR. The court found that the relationship between Hernández and Bridge Security was that of an independent contractor, not an employee-employer relationship as defined by Puerto Rican labor laws.
The court ruled, "the part appealed is not the employer of the appellant," and therefore, the claims of retaliation and unpaid wages could not proceed against UPR.
The court's opinion emphasized that Hernández was under a contract with Bridge Security Services, which had a separate agreement with UPR to provide security services. The court concluded that since UPR did not directly supervise Hernández or have an employment relationship with him, the claims against UPR were not valid.
Impact
This ruling has significant implications for workers in Puerto Rico, especially those in non-traditional employment arrangements. It clarifies the legal definitions of employer and employee under Puerto Rican law, particularly in cases involving independent contractors. The decision emphasizes that protections against discrimination and retaliation apply primarily to those classified as employees under relevant labor laws.
Moreover, the ruling may deter similar claims from employees who work for contractors, as it sets a precedent that contractors may not be held accountable for actions taken by their clients unless a direct employment relationship exists. This could lead to fewer protections for workers in similar situations, raising concerns about workplace rights and discrimination.
What's Next
Details were not available in the court filing regarding whether Hernández plans to appeal this decision further. There may also be related cases pending that address similar issues of workplace discrimination and the definitions of employment relationships in Puerto Rico.