The Court of Appeals of Puerto Rico recently ruled in favor of Thompson Construction Group, Inc. in a case involving Harry Vélez Mayoral, confirming a lower court's decision to grant summary judgment. This ruling, issued on August 31, 2026, affects employees in Puerto Rico who may face similar allegations of wrongful termination and breach of contract. The court's decision underscores the importance of evidence in employment disputes and clarifies the standards for justifying terminations under Puerto Rican law.
The case, docket number TA2026AP00693, began when Harry Vélez Mayoral filed a complaint against Thompson Construction on November 14, 2025. He claimed that he was wrongfully terminated from his position as General Foreman on October 31, 2025, under the pretext of a company reorganization. Vélez Mayoral argued that after his dismissal, the company continued to operate in a manner similar to before, indicating that his termination was unjustified. He also alleged that Thompson Construction failed to pay him a bonus as outlined in his employment contract for completing houses within a specified timeframe.
In response, Thompson Construction denied Vélez Mayoral's claims and asserted that his termination was justified due to economic losses the company incurred, which necessitated a reduction in workforce. They contended that the complaint lacked merit, particularly regarding the bonus claim, as Vélez Mayoral had not completed any houses within the required timeframe. After the discovery phase of the case, Thompson Construction filed a motion for summary judgment on April 27, 2026, arguing that there were no genuine issues of material fact that warranted a trial.
The lower court ruled in favor of Thompson Construction on June 22, 2026, stating that Vélez Mayoral had not sufficiently disputed the facts presented by the company. The court found that Thompson Construction had provided ample evidence to support its claims of economic hardship and the legitimacy of the reorganization that led to Vélez Mayoral's termination. The court's decision was based on the assertion that the termination was part of a bona fide business decision rather than an arbitrary dismissal.
In its ruling, the Court of Appeals stated, "The appellant did not present evidence to contest the material fact that his termination was part of legitimate business measures due to sustained economic losses." The panel, which included Judges Sánchez Báez, Grana Martínez, Ronda Del Toro, and Lotti Rodríguez, confirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the evidence presented by Thompson Construction met the legal standards for justifying a termination under Puerto Rican law.
This ruling has significant implications for both employees and employers in Puerto Rico. It reinforces the idea that employers can terminate employees for economic reasons, provided they can demonstrate that the decision is based on legitimate business needs and not on arbitrary or discriminatory motives. The court's decision also highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence in disputes regarding employment contracts and wrongful termination claims.
Going forward, this ruling may serve as a precedent for similar cases in Puerto Rico, particularly in the context of employment law. Employees may need to be more vigilant about documenting their performance and contractual obligations to support their claims in the event of termination. Employers, on the other hand, must ensure they have robust evidence to justify any layoffs or terminations to avoid potential legal challenges.
As for the next steps, it is unclear whether Harry Vélez Mayoral plans to appeal this decision to a higher court. The court filing did not specify any intentions for further legal action. However, the outcome of this case may influence future employment-related disputes in Puerto Rico, particularly regarding the interpretation of termination laws and contractual obligations.