CRST Independent Contractor Driver Litigation

Any truck driver who drove for CRST’s Expedited division at any time from January 17, 2017 to the present and was classified as an independent contractor, can request to join the case. To do so, you must fill out and sign a Consent to Sue form (click here) and return it to Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC by fax, email or mail.  The Consent to Sue form may be submitted electronically online through this website (click here).

About This Case

This lawsuit is brought as a nationwide class and collective action on behalf of truckers who drove for CRST’s Expedited division and were treated as “owner operators” or “lease operators” by CRST. The lawsuit claims that CRST misclassifies these drivers as “independent contractors” when they are actually employees and then makes unlawful deductions from their wages that result in minimum wage violations. Plaintiffs seek unpaid wages as secured by the Fair Labor Standards Act (minimum wages), liquidated (double) damages, and costs and attorneys’ fees, as well as declaratory relief.  The initial complaint was filed on January 17, 2020 in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

How to Join This Case

Any truck driver who drove for CRST’s Expedited division at any time from January 17, 2017 to the present and was classified as an independent contractor, can request to join the case. To do so, you must fill out and sign a Consent to Sue form (click here) and return it to Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC by fax, email or mail.  The Consent to Sue form may be submitted electronically online through this website (click here).

You need the free Acrobat Reader installed to view the form.

Status Reports

Motion to Certify Class - Posted November 3, 2020

On October 23, 2020, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Conditionally Certify a FLSA Collective Action and asked the Court to find that lease operator drivers who drove for CRST in the Expedited division are “similarly situated” to the Named Plaintiffs in this case. Similarly situated means that the drivers were subject to the same illegal policies and practices as the named Plaintiffs and therefore have the same claims against Defendants. The Plaintiffs requested the court order that notice to join the lawsuit be sent to similarly situated drivers, that is, all drivers who entered into an independent Contractor Operator Agreement. You can read the Motion here.

Plaintiffs are awaiting a response from the Defendants and a Ruling from the Judge on these recent filings.

Amended Complaint - Posted November 3, 2020

On October 23, 2030, Plaintiffs filed a Third Amended Complaint on behalf of lease operator drivers who drove for CRST Expedited, Inc. The lawsuit claims that CRST misclassified drivers as Independent Contractors and failed to pay the minimum wages required by federal and state law, made unlawful deductions from pay, unjustly enriched itself through the use of unconscionable contracts, fraudulently induced drivers to become lease/owner operators, and violated the Truth in Leasing Act. For more details on these claims, you can read a copy of the Third Amended Complaint here.

Amended Complaint – Posted September 25, 2020

On, September 18, 2020, Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC filed an amended complaint on behalf of the plaintiffs in the District of Iowa. This means that the original form of the complaint has changed. The amended complaint includes drivers who drove for the Expedited division that CRST misclassified as independent contractors.  You can see the Complaint by clicking here.

Case Transferred – Posted August 19, 2020

On August 5, 2020, Judge Saris found that the case should be heard in the US District Court for the Northern District of Iowa and transferred the case there.  This means that the case will continue in Iowa.

CRST Owner Operator Lawsuit - posted March 5, 2020

Answers to Common Questions - Posted January 22, 2020

What claims are covered in this lawsuit?

The lawsuit claims that CRST treated so-called “owner operators” as independent contractors when they were really employees of CRST as a matter of law. As such, CRST failed to pay all the wages due, and made unlawful deductions from truckers’ pay for truck lease payments, gas, equipment, maintenance, insurance, tolls, Qualcomm, and bonding, etc.

What remedies are sought?

Under the federal minimum wage law, back pay and an equal amount of liquidated damages are claimed for each violation.

How far back can claims be made?

Generally, claims can be made for at least the three years preceding the date the complaint was filed. You are entitled to file FLSA claims (using the Consent to Sue form) for the period extending back three years from the date you file the form. Federal forced labor claims have a ten-year limitation period.

Do I have to pay to join the case?

No. The attorneys are handling this case on a contingent basis and will only be paid if and when we win through a settlement or final judgment. When plaintiffs win a pay case, the defendant must pay the plaintiffs’ costs and attorneys’ fees.

Can I wait to file my Consent to Sue Form?

Your claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act are not covered in the case until your Consent to Sue form is returned to the plaintiffs’ attorneys and filed with the Court. If you delay in filing the Consent to Sue Form, part or all of your claim may be barred by the “statute of limitation.”

Can CRST fire me or take action against me for joining the lawsuit?

The law prohibits retaliation for joining a pay lawsuit. If any employee suffers retaliation, CRST would be liable for double the injury caused by retaliation against an employee. Notify us immediately if you hear of any threats of retaliation or if you think any retaliation occurs. Retaliation is extremely rare in overtime cases, because an employer can suffer such serious penalties.

What locations are covered by this lawsuit?

Past and present truckers driving for CRST as “owner operators” anywhere in the U.S. may be included in this lawsuit.

Who Are the Lawyers Representing the Plaintiffs in this Case?

Getman, Sweeney & Dunn, PLLC, Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C. Edward Tuddenham, and Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. are representing the Plaintiffs in this case.

Case Inquiry

Fill out this form if you would like someone from GSD to contact you to provide more information. Please note that if you would like to join the lawsuit, you must fill out the "Consent to Sue" form linked in the "How to Join this Case" section.