EEOC sues Texas carrier over age limits on drivers

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission filed suit Sept. 24 against Pharr, Texas-based Trancasa USA Inc., alleging the cross-border carrier systematically rejected older truck driver applicants and imposed stricter requirements based on age, according to FreightWaves on Oct. 9.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in McAllen, alleges violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, which bars employment discrimination against people 40 and older. According to the complaint, Trancasa tied hiring to standards from a commercial liability insurance policy purchased in 2023 that allegedly required drivers to be at least 23 and no older than 65 — with drivers under 25 or over 60 who had any traffic violations or accidents in the previous three years deemed ineligible, and drivers ages 63 to 65 required to submit the long-form medical examination report known as Form MCSA-5875. The EEOC says federal law does not require trucking companies to obtain the long-form report. "Employers cannot discriminate against workers by claiming that the discrimination is required or authorized by a contract with another party, such as a customer or insurance provider," said Ronald L. Phillips, acting EEOC Dallas regional attorney.

The charge that led to the suit came from Gilbert Cerda, a 64-year-old driver with more than 20 years of experience and a clean driving record, who applied in November 2023. A recruiter allegedly told him his application needed review by Trancasa's insurance carrier because he was approaching the policy's maximum eligible age, and around Nov. 27, 2023, he was told the insurer had determined he could not be hired because of his age. The EEOC alleges multiple applicants over 60 were refused under the same standards since at least June 2023. Trancasa operates 171 power units and employs 198 drivers, with about 18.8 million miles reported in 2025, per FMCSA data. The agency seeks back pay, prejudgment interest, front pay, and liquidated damages plus a permanent injunction; it alleges the violations were willful, though that has not been adjudicated and no damages have been awarded.