Background
Luis Franceschi-Rodriguez, a native Spanish speaker from Puerto Rico, sustained a compensable workplace injury on March 1, 2022, while lifting chicken boxes at a Perdue Foods poultry plant in Delaware. The repetitive lifting caused strain and injury to his right upper extremity. After surgery, his surgeon released him with permanent sedentary work restrictions, barring overhead use of his right arm and any lifting, pulling, or pushing over ten pounds.
Before moving to the mainland, Franceschi-Rodriguez had earned a four-year degree in respiratory therapy and worked as both a respiratory therapist and a police officer in Puerto Rico — all conducted entirely in Spanish. After caring for his ill parents in Massachusetts for roughly two decades, he moved to Delaware and took a general labor job at Perdue, where Spanish-speaking colleagues and interpreters were available. His Puerto Rico credentials could not transfer to Delaware without completing coursework and exams in English, a language he cannot read, write, or meaningfully communicate in.
Perdue filed a petition to terminate Franceschi-Rodriguez’s temporary total disability benefits, arguing he was physically able to work. The Industrial Accident Board (“the Board”) — the administrative body that handles workers’ compensation disputes in Delaware — sided with Perdue, finding Franceschi-Rodriguez was not a “displaced worker” and converting his benefits to partial disability at the total disability rate. Franceschi-Rodriguez appealed to the Superior Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Superior Court reversed the Board’s decision. Under Delaware’s displaced worker doctrine, an injured worker who was a physical laborer before an injury, can no longer do physical labor because of the injury, and lacks the education or skills to obtain non-physical employment is entitled to total disability benefits. The burden-shifting framework requires the employer first to show the employee is no longer totally incapacitated; if successful, the employee must prove he is “prima facie displaced” — meaning he is an unskilled worker whose injury prevents him from performing general labor. If the employee meets that burden, the employer must then identify available jobs within the employee’s restrictions.
The court found that the Board’s own factual findings undermined its conclusion. The Board acknowledged that Franceschi-Rodriguez had only worked in construction or factory labor since leaving Puerto Rico, was limited to sedentary work, faced a significant language barrier, and that none of the jobs on Perdue’s labor market survey were suitable for him. Yet the Board denied displaced worker status primarily because Franceschi-Rodriguez held a four-year degree and had law enforcement experience — credentials earned decades ago, entirely in Spanish, and non-transferable to Delaware’s labor market without English proficiency. The court held this reasoning was not supported by substantial evidence, drawing on a parallel case (Sabo v. Pestex) where the Board similarly failed to explain how old, unusable credentials constituted transferable skills.
The court also agreed with Franceschi-Rodriguez that a language barrier, while not sufficient on its own to establish displacement, is a relevant factor. And it found that Perdue would have failed the burden of identifying available employment: its labor market survey was based on incorrect physical restrictions, and the only two sedentary positions were either unsuitable (one required bilingual skills Franceschi-Rodriguez does not have) or unavailable. The reversal was issued without prejudice, meaning Perdue may file a new petition with the Board if it chooses.
Key Takeaways
- A language barrier alone will not establish displaced worker status under Delaware law, but it is a significant factor that the Board must weigh alongside the employee’s age, education, work history, physical restrictions, and the realistic availability of suitable work.
- Old credentials and work experience from a foreign jurisdiction — especially those obtained in a different language — may not constitute “transferable skills” if the employee cannot use them in the current labor market. The Board must explain how specific skills actually transfer rather than cite them in the abstract.
- A flawed labor market survey — one built on incorrect physical restrictions or that ignores the employee’s actual limitations — will not satisfy the employer’s burden of showing available employment opportunities within the injured worker’s restrictions.
Why It Matters
This decision underscores that Delaware courts will look past formal credentials to ask a practical question: can this injured worker actually compete for jobs in the real labor market? For employers in industries that rely heavily on non-English-speaking labor, the ruling is a reminder that when a workplace injury sidelines a manual laborer, the displaced worker analysis must account for the full picture — including language access, technological literacy, and whether old qualifications have any current market value. Employers seeking to terminate total disability benefits should ensure that their labor market surveys are built on accurate medical restrictions and that the identified positions are genuinely accessible to the specific claimant, not merely theoretically available.