Roos Foods v. Guardado, 152 A.3d 114

Guardado, an undocumented Salvadoran woman, injured her left wrist at work and received total disability benefits after surgery; doctors later released her for one-handed light-duty work.
Employer (Roos Foods) petitioned to terminate benefits; medical testimony and a labor-market survey (identifying several light-duty jobs) supported that she could work.
The labor-market survey did not account for Guardado’s undocumented status, which she testified she lacked any authorization to work and speaks no English.
The Industrial Accident Board found Guardado was no longer totally disabled but concluded she was a prima facie displaced worker based solely on her undocumented status and denied termination because employer’s evidence did not show jobs available to an undocumented worker.
The Superior Court affirmed; the Delaware Supreme Court granted review and reversed, remanding for rehearing with guidance on how undocumented status factors into the displaced-worker analysis.

Issue	Guardado’s Argument	Roos Foods’ Argument	Held
Whether undocumented status alone makes a prima facie displaced worker	Undocumented status makes her prima facie displaced	Undocumented status alone should not	Undocumented status alone is not relevant to prima facie displaced status; determination must be individualized using established factors (impairment, age, education, experience, etc.)
Whether undocumented status must be considered when employer shows jobs available to worker	Not contested; Board should consider status when assessing availability	Argued proving availability is impossible without employers admitting illegal hires	Employer must account for claimant’s undocumented status when proving jobs are actually available; may use reliable market evidence (e.g., statistical or expert evidence) rather than confessions from unlawful employers
Whether labor-market survey was sufficient when it ignored undocumented status	Survey insufficient to show jobs were within reach	Survey showed suitable positions exist	Survey was insufficient because it failed to consider claimant’s undocumented status; employer’s evidence must address that reality

Campos v. Daisy Constr. Co., 107 A.3d 570 (Del. 2014) (employer must show jobs are actually available to the worker; worker must be taken as he was hired)
Ham v. Chrysler Corp., 231 A.2d 258 (Del. 1967) (definition and factors for displaced-worker doctrine)
Chrysler Corp. v. Duff, 314 A.2d 915 (Del. 1973) (prima facie vs. actual displacement and burden-shifting framework)
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999) (trial court must ensure expert testimony is relevant and reliable)