Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, PROCEDURE—D.P.R.: Atheist Wal-Mart butcher’s claims were not all properly exhausted, (Jul 14, 2025)

By Nicholas Kaster, J.D.

Puerto Rico’s DOL is not an FEP agency for purposes of Title VII retaliation claims, the court explained, so a would-be plaintiff must file a Title VII retaliation claim in the federal EEOC.

An atheist employee’s claim against Wal-Mart Puerto Rico for discriminatory discharge based on his religious beliefs survived a motion to dismiss. Because the employee filed an administrative complaint of discrimination before the “Standards Division” in the Department of Labor (PR-DOL), the federal district court for the district of Puerto Rico held that he did not fail to exhaust his administrative remedies as to the discriminatory discharge claim. However, because the PR-DOL is not a FEP agency for retaliation claims, the employee did not exhaust administrative remedies with regard to that claim, the court concluded, and thus his retaliation claims were dismissed with prejudice (Perez-Serrano v. Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc., No. 24-1456 (ADC) (D.P.R. July 11, 2025)).

Complained, was fired. The employee sued Wal-Mart Puerto Rico, Inc. for violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as well as violations of several Puerto Rico labor and employment laws. He alleged that he was discriminated against and ultimately dismissed by Wal-Mart because of his atheistic religious beliefs, after he complained about the overtly religious conduct of and proselytizing by his Christian co-workers during working hours.

Sued. Wal-Mart moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a claim. It sought dismissal on three grounds. First, that employee’s claims were premised on a statutory provision, 42 U.S.C. § 1981a, which did not give rise to a cause of action. Second, that even if the employee had alleged a claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, he failed to exhaust administrative remedies. And third, that because he failed to plead a viable federal cause of action, the court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his Puerto Rico law claims.

Claim of religious discrimination. The court found that the well-pleaded facts of the employee’s complaint clearly spelled out a claim for religious discrimination under Title VII. The employee alleged that he had worked for Wal-Mart as a butcher since January 11, 2017. He alleged that he is “openly atheist and does not adhere to the Christian faith or any other religious belief as an Atheistic religious idea.” He claimed that he began to experience discrimination based on his religious beliefs around November 2020. He said he was subjected to mockery and derogatory comments and that he was subjected to Christian sermons, sacred music in his work area, written promotions (like flyers) in his locker where he kept his personal items during his work shift, and constant questioning of his beliefs.

He also complained that he was discriminated against in terms of a reasonable accommodation request regarding work shift preferences, to the benefit of one of his harassers. The complaint also described the employee’s attempts to remedy the situation through internal procedures, which resulted in him being told to ignore his coworkers and, at most, a general employee meeting to discuss general workplace policies regarding discussions on politics or religion and the use of speakers to listen to music. Finally, the employee alleged that he was dismissed on June 19, 2021.

The fact that the employee characterized his remedy as one arising under “[t]he Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981-2000h-6; as amended by the Civil Rights At of 1991, 42 U.S.C. §§ [sic] 1981a” is not by itself a basis for dismissal, the court said. The employee repeatedly alleged that his dismissal was based solely on discriminatory motivations. He further alleged that he was subject to discriminatory acts and retaliation. He also cited to Wal-Mart’s employee manual and alleged that the company failed to comply with its own rules regarding religious discrimination, anti-retaliation prohibitions, and regulation of electronic devices in the workplace. It is easy to see that the employee stated a Title VII claim for discriminatory dismissal and retaliation, the court concluded.

Exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court then turned to Wal-Mart’s second argument: that the employee failed to adequately exhaust administrative remedies before filing his claims.

It is black-letter law that as a condition precedent to filing a suit in federal court under Title VII, a plaintiff must usually first exhaust administrative remedies, the court noted. This normally entails filing an administrative charge before the EEOC. This requirement is important, said the court, because in employment discrimination cases, the scope of a subsequently filed civil complaint is limited by the charge filed with the EEOC and the investigation which can reasonably be expected to grow out of that charge.

Deferral jurisdictions. However, certain jurisdictions have anti-discrimination laws coextensive with Title VII as well as a “Fair Employment Practices Agency” (FEP) with the authority to grant relief from similar unlawful employment practices. These are known as “deferral jurisdictions,” and a would-be plaintiff may comply with Title VII’s exhaustion requirement by filing a charge before these state or local agencies. Puerto Rico is a deferral jurisdiction, and the designated agency is the Department of Labor (PR-DOL). Importantly, however, the PR-DOL is not an FEP agency for purposes of Title VII retaliation claims, the court noted, so a would-be plaintiff must file a Title VII retaliation claim in the federal EEOC.

Here, the employee claimed to have filed an administrative complaint numbered “A1-D1-DP-0162-20” before the “Standards Division” in the PR-DOL. However, the employee later described the administrative complaint in his opposition as “Complaint No. OM-21-417” and characterized it as an attempt at mediation. On reply, Wal-Mart also described this as a mediation process and added that it was undertaken before the PR-DOL’s Office of Mediation and Adjudication under “Complaint No. OM-1-417.” Wal-Mart argued that this particular office within PR-DOL has no legal authority to grant any relief for employment discrimination, that the right office to exhaust administrative remedies would be the PR-DOL’s Anti-Discrimination Unit, and that the employee thus failed to properly exhaust administrative remedies.

Employer was on notice. Wal-Mart’s position was untenable, the court determined. The PR-DOL is undoubtedly the appropriate Puerto Rico agency in which to file a Title VII claim for discriminatory discharge, and neither the statute nor the implementing regulations require a claimant to channel his or her claim to any specific office within the agency. Assuming the administrative claim filed in the PR-DOL encompassed the same facts and claims as those included in the complaint, Wal-Mart could not argue that it was not on notice of the nature of the employee’s claims, the court stated.

That said, the court added, it was clear that the employee should have filed any retaliation claim to the EEOC within 180 days after the last act of retaliation occurred. Because the PR-DOL, as discussed above, is not a FEP agency for retaliation claims, he did not exhaust administrative remedies in this regard, the court concluded.

Claim for discriminatory discharge survives. In the end, the court found that the employee’s claims for discriminatory discharge under Title VII survived Wal-Mart’s motion to dismiss, but that his claims of retaliation under the same statute did not. The employee’s federal retaliation claims were therefore dismissed without prejudice. In addition, because the court declined to dismiss all of the employee’s federal discrimination claims, it likewise declined to dismiss his other Puerto Rico law claims. It held that these claims were properly within the court’s supplemental jurisdiction.

The case is No. 24-1456 (ADC).

Judge: Delgado-Colon, A.

Attorneys: Milagros Rivera-Rivera (Milagros Rivera Rivera Law Office) for Isaac Perez-Serrano. Mariela Rexach (Schuster) for Walmart Puerto Rico Inc.

Companies: Walmart Puerto Rico Inc.

Cases: Procedure ReligiousDiscrimination Discrimination PuertoRicoNews