A federal lawsuit alleges that Trancasa USA discriminated against older truck drivers by enforcing age-based hiring restrictions, impacting qualified applicants.
A federal lawsuit has brought to light serious allegations against a Texas trucking firm, Trancasa USA Inc., for discriminatory hiring practices against older drivers. The lawsuit, initiated by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), revolves around the company's refusal to hire a qualified 64-year-old driver due to age-based restrictions allegedly imposed by its insurance provider.
According to the complaint filed on September 24, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Trancasa has allegedly engaged in systematic discrimination against older applicant drivers. The EEOC claims that the company has enforced stricter hiring requirements that are heavily influenced by age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which protects individuals aged 40 and older from employment discrimination.
Details of the Hiring Practices
Trancasa USA operates a fleet of 171 power units and employs around 198 drivers, accumulating approximately 18.8 million miles in reported operations in 2025, as per data from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The company also maintains a broader transportation network serving routes in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada, boasting over 400 transport units and around 1,000 semi-trailers.
The lawsuit specifies that new eligibility criteria associated with a commercial liability insurance policy adopted in 2023 were at the heart of the discrimination allegations. These standards reportedly required drivers to be aged between 23 and 65. Furthermore, drivers younger than 25 or older than 60 were disqualified from employment if they had any traffic violations or accidents over the previous three years. Additionally, those aged 63 to 65 were required to provide detailed medical documentation (known as Form MCSA-5875) to qualify for hiring, a requirement not uniformly applied to younger applicants.
Case of Gilbert Cerda
At the center of this lawsuit is Gilbert Cerda, a 64-year-old driver with more than two decades of trucking experience and a clean driving record. Cerda's application for a position at Trancasa in November 2023 was met with skepticism, as he was told that he would need to be approved by the company’s insurance carrier due to his age. Following several weeks of waiting, Cerda learned through a recruiter that the insurance provider had refused to cover him based on soundness linked to his age.
The EEOC asserts that Cerda's experience is not an isolated case; it claims that Trancasa has denied employment to multiple applicants over the age of 60 since at least June 2023 under the same stringent standards. Furthermore, the complaint emphasizes that the requirement to submit Form MCSA-5875 was not consistently enforced among younger drivers.
Insurance Provider's Role Remains Unclear
One notable aspect of the lawsuit is that the EEOC does not reveal the identity of the insurance provider that allegedly prompted these age-related hiring restrictions. Trancasa has reportedly shifted between multiple insurance companies between June 2021 and June 2024. While FMCSA filings confirm that Trancasa had liability insurance, they do not clarify the specifics regarding which insurer imposed these controversial age requirements.
Inquiries made by FreightWaves to Trancasa and several former insurance providers regarding the allegations and existing policies did not yield responses up to the point of publication.
Remedies and Implications
The EEOC is seeking remedies for the affected applicants, which includes back pay, prejudgment interest, potential employment or front pay, and liquidated damages specifically for Cerda and others who faced similar discrimination. Moreover, the lawsuit demands a permanent injunction that would prohibit further discriminatory practices and enforce equal employment opportunities across all age groups within the company.
The EEOC had previously issued a reasonable-cause determination in March and attempted to resolve this issue through an administrative conciliation process before opting to file the suit. The agency alleges those discriminatory practices were willful, although this claim has yet to be thoroughly adjudicated. It should be noted that no financial penalties have been awarded at this stage.
Currently, the case is filed under U.S. EEOC v. Trancasa USA Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00457, situated in the Southern District of Texas.
This lawsuit underscores the complexities faced by motor carriers in maintaining compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws while navigating the stringent requirements of insurance underwriting. As the case evolves, the implications could extend beyond Trancasa, prompting reevaluation of similar practices within the trucking industry.
Why it matters: The ongoing litigation against Trancasa USA highlights the tension between insurance practices and anti-discrimination principles in hiring drivers, particularly among an increasingly aging workforce in the trucking sector.
