Drivers, Fleets Embroiled In Lawsuits Over Wages

Six truckload carriers are alleged in separate lawsuits, brought by the same law firm, to have underpaid drivers. A settlement appears near in two cases, another may be shifted to an appeals court and the remaining three continue to work their way through district courts, according to documents.

Calls and e-mails to the carriers involved or their attorneys were not returned. Each of the motor carriers denied any wrongdoing in court filings.

Swartz Swidler of Cherry Hill, New Jersey, is representing the plaintiffs in all six suits, which allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. All of the truckload carriers are on the Transport Topics Top 100 list of the largest for-hire fleets in the United States and Canada.

A case involving C.R. England appears to be nearing a final settlement. Swartz Swidler said on its website “a neutral third-party mediator assisted the parties in reaching a compromise.”

A U.S. District Court in Salt Lake City said that during August it had granted preliminary approval and set a hearing for Sept. 18 to determine whether the proposal is fair.

Calls to Jesse Hayes, C.R. England’s associate general counsel for labor and employment, were not returned. Swartz Swidler did not respond for additional comments regarding any of the lawsuits. Details of the proposed settlement were not yet available.

In a minimum wage-related case against Werner Enterprises, the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska said it would allow the carrier’s interlocutory appeal, which would stay the proceedings in the district court and move the case to the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis for possible review. Werner took that step after losing its request for summary judgment, court documents show.

“If the 8th Circuit were to conclude that this court’s decisions to find the defendants liable as to sleeper berth claims and the application of hourly damages for state law claims were incorrect, then the plaintiffs’ case as to those issues would be dismissed,” Judge Lyle Strom of the U.S. District in Omaha wrote in an order Aug. 25.

Multiple attempts to contact Werner Enterprises were not returned.

Separately, a court-authorized notice said P.A.M. Transportation Services and the plaintiffs in that case agreed to a $3.45 million settlement. The notice to drivers said both sides disagreed on “who would win and how much could be won if the case went to trial.”

The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Arkansas’ final approval of the P.A.M. settlement is pending, according to the notice from the El Dorado-based court.

At issue in the P.A.M. suit were allegations of underpaid wages connected with orientation, training, travel time, mileage pay, and meal and rest breaks, court documents show. The suit was filed in September 2013.

These allegations, in whole or part, surfaced in each of the six suits.

Meanwhile, a suit against U.S. Xpress Enterprises could be headed to a trial, albeit one that still is a long way off.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Eastern Tennessee, which is hearing this case, stated earlier this year, “The trial of this case will be held in Chattanooga before the United States district judge and a jury beginning on Feb. 12, 2018.”

The plaintiffs allege U.S. Xpress failed to pay newly hired drivers an amount equal to minimum wage for all hours worked during the initial hiring orientation and during the over-the-road training program that was six to eight weeks long. Court records show the suit began July 26, 2013.

Also, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee in Nashville said the most recent activity in a suit against Western Express was related to the consent form from drivers opting into the suit. The suit was filed Jan. 13, 2014, the court said.

The law firm alleged Western Express failed to pay minimum wages to over-the-road drivers for all hours worked as required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stevens Transport faces similar allegations. The parties are in the discovery phase and arguing over the information asked for and given in the interrogatories, documents from the U.S. District Court for the Northern Texas District show.

In arguing against the validity of a class-action suit, Stevens attorneys said in a court document, “Plaintiffs must make at least a modest evidentiary showing of an unlawful companywide policy or plan. The personal experiences of three individuals — without evidence of a uniform company policy or practice — are not sufficient evidence to warrant conditional certification of a nationwide class that could be as large as 7,100.”