The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals has dismissed an appeal from Baxter Healthcare of Puerto Rico regarding a workplace harassment case. This decision affects the ongoing legal battle between the healthcare company and its former employees, Adaliz Marrero Marrero and Pedro Rivera, who allege harassment and wrongful termination. The ruling emphasizes the importance of jurisdiction and proper legal procedures in workplace disputes.
The case, filed under docket number TA2026AP00928, arose from a complaint submitted by Marrero and Rivera against Baxter Healthcare and several individuals, including Glenda Boodoosingh and France Lee Villanueva Soto. The plaintiffs claim violations of Puerto Rico's labor laws, including the Law for the Prevention and Prohibition of Workplace Harassment (Law 90), the Law for the Indemnification for Unjustified Dismissal (Law 80), and the Law for Summary Procedures in Labor Claims (Law 2).
Background
The dispute began when Marrero and Rivera filed a complaint on February 20, 2026, alleging workplace harassment and wrongful termination against Baxter Healthcare and its employees. They claimed that the company failed to address their complaints adequately and sought legal remedies under various labor laws in Puerto Rico.
After the initial filing, Boodoosingh and other co-defendants responded by challenging the court's jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiffs had not exhausted internal remedies before filing the lawsuit. They contended that the case should be dismissed on these grounds. Despite these objections, the case proceeded, leading to the partial judgment from the lower court.
The Ruling
On August 10, 2026, the lower court issued a partial judgment, dismissing the wrongful termination claims against Boodoosingh, Villanueva Soto, and Ludgeria Colón Pabón. However, the court did not dismiss the harassment claims against all the defendants. Following this ruling, the defendants appealed, seeking to overturn the decision regarding the harassment claims.
The Puerto Rico Court of Appeals, led by Judge Cruz Hiraldo, reviewed the appeal and determined that it lacked jurisdiction. The court stated, "We dismiss the present appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to its premature nature." The ruling highlighted that the appeal was filed before the lower court had resolved all pending matters, particularly a motion for reconsideration filed by one of the co-defendants.
Impact
This ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural rules in legal disputes. By dismissing the appeal, the court reinforced that parties must follow proper legal channels before seeking appellate review. This decision may set a precedent for future cases involving workplace harassment and the necessary steps that must be taken before escalating to higher courts.
Moreover, the ruling emphasizes the need for plaintiffs to exhaust internal remedies before pursuing legal action. It serves as a reminder for employees to utilize all available options within their workplace before turning to the courts for resolution.
What's Next
The case will return to the lower court for further proceedings regarding the harassment claims. The defendants still have the option to appeal the lower court's decisions once all matters have been resolved. Additionally, it remains to be seen how the ongoing litigation will unfold as the parties continue to navigate the legal process.