The case was then reviewed by the Puerto Rico Supreme Court, which concluded that an employer can adopt rules and regulations for the good and normal functioning of the company and can also evaluate its employees based on the prevailing moral and public order values. It held that not all potential violations that constitute just cause for termination must be included in the Employee Handbook and that a suspension for more than three months constitutes termination under Act 80. In addition, the Court held that the presumption of innocence that applies in the criminal context does not extend to the labor and employment context. The Court further concluded that the indictment constituted conduct severe enough to impact the normal functioning of the workplace and therefore, justified termination.

The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found in favor of the company and held the convictions substantially related to the job in that the position involved completely unsupervised one-on-one work with customers and the employer's large female population was "problematic" because, if the plaintiff developed a relationship with a coworker and it ended badly, he could exhibit the same type of behaviors that led to his convictions.

On appeal, the Labor and Industry Review Commission reversed the ALJ's ruling stating that for a substantial relationship between the job and the conviction to exist, there must be a realistic possibility of recidivism in the new job by analyzing whether the tendencies and character traits that led to a conviction are likely to reappear on the job. The LIRC found that the plaintiff's crimes were not substantially related to the job plaintiff sought and that a job that required unsupervised conduct with customers at their homes did not suggest that plaintiff would engage in the same type of conduct that led to the convictions. It further held that there was nothing about the work atmosphere that would trigger the plaintiff to repeat the crimes for which he had been convicted.