Enterprise Rent-A-Car and its parent, Enterprise Holdings, have been named in more than 20 significant legal actions since 2000, paying over $24 million to resolve claims that run from age and race discrimination in hiring to unpaid overtime, pandemic-era mass layoffs, unfair labor practices, and consumer billing abuses. Most of these Enterprise Rent-A-Car lawsuits ended in settlements or consent decrees in which the company denied wrongdoing. The pattern is unusually consistent in one area: federal regulators have repeatedly accused Enterprise of screening older and Black applicants out of the management trainee program that feeds nearly all of its leadership positions.
Age Discrimination in the Management Trainee Program
The most repeated allegation against Enterprise is that it kept applicants aged 40 and older out of its entry-level management trainee role. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has brought three separate actions on this theme over 25 years, each ending in a payout and a multi-year consent decree.
Florida: $1.8 Million Settlement in 2025
The most recent case was filed in September 2023 in the Southern District of Florida against Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida. The EEOC alleged that from at least 2019 through 2023, applicants 40 and older made up roughly 15 percent of the pool for management trainee jobs but less than 3 percent of hires. More than 125 witnesses told the agency they were asked their age or college graduation year, told the company wanted candidates “fresh out of college,” or discouraged from applying.1EEOC. Enterprise Leasing to Pay $1.8 Million in Florida EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit
A federal judge approved a consent decree on September 24, 2025. Enterprise agreed to pay $1.8 million to a class of older applicants who were turned down, and for three years will have to implement new policies, run annual Age Discrimination in Employment Act training, investigate every age complaint, maintain an ethics hotline, and send the EEOC biannual reports on hiring decisions through a new applicant tracking system.1EEOC. Enterprise Leasing to Pay $1.8 Million in Florida EEOC Age Discrimination Lawsuit The company denied the allegations and denied violating the ADEA as part of the settlement.2Dapeer Law. Enterprise Florida EEOC Age Discrimination Settlement
Because this was a federal enforcement action rather than a private class action, there is no opt-out process. Under federal law, the EEOC’s filing of the suit terminated any individual’s right to bring a separate private civil action over the same failure-to-hire claims.2Dapeer Law. Enterprise Florida EEOC Age Discrimination Settlement
Los Angeles: $425,000 Conciliation in 2015
A decade earlier, the EEOC reached a $425,000 agreement with Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles over its Burbank office. Between 2008 and 2011, no applicant over 40 was hired for the management trainee role there, and ten candidates were passed over for younger, less-qualified applicants. The agency also found the office failed to keep application records as federal law required.3EEOC. Local Office of Enterprise Rent-A-Car to Pay $425,000 to Settle EEOC Age Discrimination Charges Enterprise denied wrongdoing, said the applicants lacked qualifications, and described the agreement as a way to avoid the cost of further proceedings.4Los Angeles Times. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Settles EEOC Age Discrimination Complaint
Texas: $300,000 Consent Decree in 2000
The earliest EEOC age case against Enterprise, filed in 1999 against Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Texas, ended with a consent decree entered on June 7, 2000. The company paid $300,000, distributed its employee referral policy to all staff, trained managers on the ADEA, agreed to use nondiscriminatory hiring criteria, retained employment applications, and submitted to annual audits and periodic reporting for three years.5Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. EEOC v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Texas
Race Discrimination in Hiring
The Baltimore OFCCP Case
In June 2016, the Department of Labor’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs filed an administrative complaint against Enterprise RAC Company of Baltimore. A compliance review concluded that African American applicants to the management trainee program were “substantially more likely to be rejected at the initial screening stage and after the first interview” than white applicants, violating Executive Order 11246’s ban on discrimination by federal contractors.6U.S. Department of Labor. US Department of Labor Sues Enterprise Rent-A-Car Subsidiary for Race-Based Hiring Discrimination
In August 2019, an administrative law judge found Enterprise liable for a pattern and practice of racial discrimination against Black applicants over two periods between 2007 and 2017. The initial ruling ordered over $6.6 million in lost earnings and benefits for 2,336 applicants, mandated job offers for 182 applicants, and indefinite debarment from federal contracts until the company fixed its practices. Total recovery was estimated at $16.3 million.7U.S. Department of Labor. Enterprise RAC Company of Baltimore LLC Found to Have Engaged in Racial Discrimination
Enterprise appealed. On November 3, 2021, the Department of Labor’s Administrative Review Board unanimously reversed the judge, finding he had “misunderstood and misapplied” the governing legal standards for both disparate impact and disparate treatment. The case was sent back for fresh proceedings before a newly assigned judge, who requested briefing in mid-2022.8DirectEmployers Association. Unanimous Appellate Court Struck Down ALJ Decision Finding Baltimore Enterprise Rent-A-Car Guilty of Unlawful Race Discrimination
St. Louis: $2.325 Million in 2002
Enterprise Leasing Co. of St. Louis settled a race discrimination suit in 2002 for $2.325 million. Eight Black employees and former employees alleged discrimination in hiring and promotions. The settlement set aside funds for the named plaintiffs, for Black employees who worked at the company between October 1995 and December 2001, and for Black applicants from the same period, and required Enterprise to improve its job posting, career counseling, and qualification-development practices.9PlanSponsor. Enterprise Settles at $2.3 Million
Overtime and Unpaid Wage Claims
Assistant Branch Managers Nationwide
In December 2007, former assistant branch manager Nickolas Hickton filed a collective action alleging Enterprise Holdings and its subsidiaries violated the Fair Labor Standards Act by misclassifying assistant branch managers as exempt from overtime. The litigation consolidated transferred suits from federal courts across the country and turned on whether the parent company was a “joint employer” of its subsidiaries’ workers.10FindLaw. In Re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation
In August 2010, a federal judge in the Western District of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment to Enterprise Holdings, concluding it was not a joint employer because its policies and services were discretionary recommendations, and it lacked authority to hire, fire, supervise, or set employment conditions for subsidiary staff. The Third Circuit affirmed in June 2012.10FindLaw. In Re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation A separate $7.75 million settlement was reached in related FLSA claims against Enterprise for unpaid overtime to employees nationwide.11Top Class Actions. Car Rental Companies Accused of Unpaid Overtime Violations
Call Center Representatives
A class action on behalf of roughly 3,100 current and former call center representatives alleged they performed unpaid work outside their shifts, including time booting up and shutting down computer systems and loading applications. The case was certified as a class action in 2011; the settlement amount has not been publicly disclosed.12Good Jobs First — Violation Tracker. Enterprise Holdings Violation Tracker
Ontario Branch Managers
A proposed Canadian class action sought unpaid overtime for branch rental managers, assistant branch rental managers, and station managers at Enterprise, National, and Alamo. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the certification motion in July 2022, a divided Divisional Court upheld that result in June 2023, and the Ontario Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal in January 2024. Former employees who believe they are owed overtime must pursue individual claims.13Koskie Minsky LLP. Enterprise, National and Alamo Rent-A-Car Class Action: Unpaid Overtime for Branch Managers and Assistant Managers
Pandemic Layoffs and the WARN Act
In May 2020, former employee Elva Benson filed a class action in the Middle District of Florida alleging Enterprise Holdings and its Florida leasing subsidiaries violated the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act by terminating approximately 964 employees on or around April 24, 2020, without the 60 days’ advance notice the law requires. Benson, who worked at Orlando International Airport, had been furloughed in March due to COVID-19 and argued the company was aware of its financial decline and the coming mass layoff.14ClassAction.org. Enterprise Violated WARN Act With Mass Layoff During Pandemic, Class Action Claims
The case settled for $175,000, with preliminary approval granted on January 10, 2022. Funds went pro rata to eligible class members who did not opt out and had not signed separate severance agreements, and more than 320 individuals filed claims.14ClassAction.org. Enterprise Violated WARN Act With Mass Layoff During Pandemic, Class Action Claims On appeal, business groups argued the WARN Act’s “natural disaster” exception should cover pandemic-era layoffs.15Restaurant Law Center. Benson v. Enterprise Leasing Company of Orlando, LLC et al.
Alamo Rent-A-Car and the NLRB
Subsidiaries operating under the Alamo brand have twice been found to have committed unfair labor practices.
A December 2001 NLRB decision concluded that Alamo Rent-A-Car violated the National Labor Relations Act at its San Francisco Airport and Burlingame, California, locations in 1999. Management held a mandatory meeting soliciting employee grievances and implying they would be addressed if workers rejected the union, made implied threats of termination against union supporters, and used discriminatory discipline. Three employees were constructively discharged or fired for union activity or for testifying in NLRB proceedings; the Board ordered reinstatement and back pay for all three.16NLRB. Alamo Rent-A-Car Cases 20-CA-29022, 20-CA-29132, and 20-CA-29336-1
At a Miami facility between late 2009 and early 2010, Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, operating as Alamo, was found to have told employees they were losing short-term disability benefits because of their union membership, unilaterally cut those benefits without bargaining, interfered with a union representative’s contractual workplace access, and encouraged an employee to circulate a decertification petition. The D.C. Circuit upheld the NLRB’s findings in 2016, holding the company had unlawfully decertified the union and refused to bargain.17FindLaw. Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida v. National Labor Relations Board
Consumer Billing and Insurance Disputes
New York Insurance Sales
In July 2003, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer settled with Enterprise over its sale of supplementary liability protection at New York locations. The Attorney General alleged Enterprise failed to provide the minimum liability coverage state law required and told customers it offered “no insurance,” prompting them to buy add-on coverage at $6.95 to $7.95 per day. Enterprise agreed to refund roughly $2 million to about 100,000 customers who bought the coverage between April and August 2001, plus $200,000 in state costs. The company signed the consent order without admitting wrongdoing and said the dispute arose from a change in state law it had implemented on time.18NY Daily News. Refunds for Enterprise Customers19Auto Rental News. Enterprise Agrees to NY Refunds of $2 Million
New Jersey Damage Billing
In October 2021, the New Jersey Attorney General announced a settlement over allegations that Enterprise billed customers for vehicle damage they did not cause. The state’s Division of Consumer Affairs investigated complaints that the company failed to let customers fully inspect vehicles for pre-existing damage, told them they would not be liable for prior damage, and then billed them anyway. Enterprise agreed to pay $50,000 in penalties and costs, document pre-existing damage for customer signature, notify customers of any damage claim within five business days of return, train staff, and submit to binding arbitration for consumer complaints the Division received over the next two years.20New Jersey Attorney General. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Agrees to $50,000 Penalty and New Measures to Protect Consumers
Double-Billing for Tolls
In November 2016, customer Mitchell Rait filed a proposed class action in the District of New Jersey alleging Enterprise charged him $37 for a toll he had already paid with his own E-ZPass transponder going through the Holland Tunnel. The suit accused Enterprise and Highway Toll Administration LLC of routinely billing renters for tolls and administrative fees already paid, and estimated the proposed class could reach “tens of thousands” of customers.21Top Class Actions. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Class Action Says Drivers Double-Billed for Tolls The case ended with a stipulation of dismissal filed December 6, 2017; terms were not disclosed.22Law360. Enterprise Resolves Proposed Class Action Over Toll Charges
Repair Costs and Diminished Value
A separate investigation has examined whether Enterprise violates state law and its own contracts by billing customers for both repair costs and the vehicle’s diminished value after a rental is damaged. State laws in Illinois, New York, California, and Pennsylvania are alleged to limit a renter’s liability to only one of these charges, whichever is less. One cited example involved a Pennsylvania customer billed $153.11 for diminished value and $1,531.10 for repairs on the same incident.23ClassAction.org. Enterprise Damaged Rental Cars Investigation
Accessibility for Drivers With Disabilities
In July 2014, Enterprise Holdings’ U.S. rental subsidiaries entered a settlement with the Department of Justice over the company’s handling of adaptive driving devices. Enterprise committed to providing hand controls, left-foot accelerators, pedal extenders, and spinner knobs at no additional cost, with equipped vehicles ready within 8 hours at 25 major airports, 24 hours at 35 additional airports, and 48 hours at other locations. Each of the three complainants received $2,000. The company set up a toll-free support number and updated its website with information for customers with disabilities, and did not admit liability or discrimination.24ADA.gov (Archive). Enterprise Holdings Settlement Agreement
California Emissions Settlement
In November 2014, the California Air Resources Board reached a $560,000 settlement with Enterprise Holdings after finding the company rented a vehicle at Burbank Airport that carried only a U.S. EPA emissions certification rather than the California-specific certification state law requires. The vehicle had an out-of-state plate and fewer than 7,500 miles on the odometer. Enterprise then issued an internal directive to all rental locations barring the rental of vehicles in California that lack a California emissions label, and the state noted the company cooperated with the investigation.25California Air Resources Board. Enterprise Holdings Inc. Settlement
Why Lawsuits Usually Name a Subsidiary, Not the Parent
Enterprise Holdings operates through dozens of regional subsidiaries, each typically named for a state or metro area. Enterprise Leasing Company of Florida, Enterprise RAC Company of Baltimore, Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of Los Angeles, and ELRAC, LLC are all separate legal entities under the Enterprise Holdings umbrella.26Enterprise Mobility. Enterprise Mobility Subsidiaries That structure matters for anyone considering a claim. In the nationwide overtime case, the Third Circuit’s conclusion that Enterprise Holdings was not a joint employer of its subsidiaries’ workers meant plaintiffs could not consolidate claims against the parent, which in practical terms required separate actions against individual subsidiaries.10FindLaw. In Re Enterprise Rent-A-Car Wage and Hour Employment Practices Litigation Most lawsuits that follow name the specific regional entity that employed the worker or served the customer rather than the parent company.