A Puerto Rico court has denied Walmart Puerto Rico, Inc.'s request to overturn a lower court's decision in a labor dispute involving claims of constructive dismissal and workplace harassment. The ruling affects Eric Felipe Flores Quiles, a former employee who alleged that he faced a hostile work environment that forced him to resign.
The case, filed under docket number TA2026CE00364, began when Flores Quiles lodged a complaint against Walmart on April 10, 2025. He claimed violations of several labor laws, including the Law to Prohibit and Prevent Workplace Harassment and the Law on Unjust Dismissals. Flores Quiles alleged that his work environment became intolerable after a new supervisor, Michelle Castillo, began making decisions without consulting him and subjected him to hostile treatment.
Flores Quiles, who had been with Walmart since 2012, reported that he experienced threats and a lack of support from Castillo, which led to physical and emotional health issues. He ultimately resigned on April 29, 2024, claiming that his resignation was a result of constructive dismissal due to the hostile work environment. He sought compensation for lost wages and damages related to the alleged harassment.
Walmart responded to Flores Quiles' complaint by denying the allegations and asserting that his claims were time-barred and lacked merit. The company argued that Flores Quiles voluntarily resigned and that he had not been subjected to a hostile work environment. Walmart filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the case without a trial, claiming that there were no material facts in dispute.
On February 23, 2026, the lower court ruled against Walmart's motion for summary judgment, stating that there were indeed material facts in dispute that warranted a trial. The court emphasized that the evidence presented by Walmart did not conclusively demonstrate that there were no genuine issues of fact. The court noted, "the litigation involves controversies that require a credibility determination, which can only be achieved through a trial on the merits."
In response, Walmart filed a certiorari petition on March 25, 2026, seeking to overturn the lower court's decision. The company argued that the lower court erred in not recognizing certain facts as undisputed and in denying the motion for summary judgment based on the existence of material facts in controversy.
The appellate court, presided over by Judges Cruz Hiraldo, Sánchez Báez, and Torres Reyes, reviewed Walmart's arguments. They concluded that the lower court had acted appropriately and that the issues raised by Walmart did not warrant overturning the decision. The appellate court found no evidence of arbitrary or capricious behavior by the lower court and stated that the material facts presented by Flores Quiles required a trial for resolution.
The court ruled, "The arguments presented by the petitioner do not motivate us to substitute the primary forum's criteria. There is no indication in the records that warrants our intervention, nor is there any legal basis that requires the issuance of the certiorari requested." This ruling means that the case will proceed to trial, where both parties will have the opportunity to present their evidence and arguments.
The implications of this ruling are significant for both parties. For Flores Quiles, it means that he will have the chance to present his case in court and seek the compensation he believes he deserves for the alleged workplace harassment and unjust dismissal. For Walmart, the ruling indicates that they will need to prepare for a trial, where they will have to defend against the claims made by Flores Quiles.
This case could also set a precedent for future workplace harassment and constructive dismissal claims in Puerto Rico. It highlights the importance of allowing employees to present their cases when there are genuine disputes over material facts, particularly in cases involving allegations of hostile work environments.
Looking ahead, the case is expected to proceed to trial, where both sides will present their evidence. It is unclear if Walmart plans to appeal further after the trial, depending on the outcome. There are no related cases pending at this time.