Kroger No-Hire Lawsuit: Drivers Allege Antitrust Conspiracy

The Kroger no-hire lawsuit is a proposed federal antitrust class action filed in April 2026 by three former Quickway Transportation drivers who accuse The Kroger Co. and three trucking carriers of conspiring to block more than 100 ex-Quickway drivers from being hired after Quickway shut down. The complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, alleges Kroger orchestrated an unwritten “no-hire” arrangement with Werner Enterprises, Swift Transportation, and U.S. Xpress to keep unionized Teamsters drivers out of comparable jobs.{¹}

Who Filed the Suit and Against Whom

The named plaintiffs are Dan Cheatham, Brian Kuhn, and Eric Cabler, all former drivers for Quickway Transportation, a Nashville-area carrier that had run dedicated routes for Kroger out of facilities in Shelbyville, Indiana, and Lynchburg, Virginia.{²} Quickway filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January 2026 and ceased operations that March. The drivers were represented by the Teamsters.

The four defendants are The Kroger Co., Werner Enterprises, Swift Transportation Services LLC, and U.S. Xpress Enterprises Inc. Swift and U.S. Xpress are both subsidiaries of Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings.{³} After Quickway folded, Kroger replaced its routes by signing new dedicated carrier agreements with these three companies. The plaintiffs seek to represent a class of more than 100 former Quickway drivers.{²}

What the Drivers Say Happened

According to the complaint, when former Quickway drivers applied for positions with Werner, Swift, and U.S. Xpress, they were told directly that instructions had come down from Kroger not to hire them. Company representatives described a “gentlemen’s agreement” and told applicants the directive “came from the top.”{²}{⁴} The plaintiffs allege Kroger told the three carriers not to hire, recruit, solicit, or employ any former Quickway drivers as a condition of the new dedicated agreements.

The suit alleges the blacklisting was driven by a desire to limit Kroger’s exposure to unionized labor, since the Quickway drivers had been Teamsters members.{³} The complaint also says Kroger labor representatives had been in discussions with the Teamsters about retaining the displaced drivers even as the no-hire arrangement was allegedly being put in place.{²}

The Legal Claim

The plaintiffs bring the case under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, arguing the alleged no-hire agreement is a per se unlawful restraint of trade.{¹} A per se claim, if it applies, means the arrangement is treated as automatically illegal without a broader inquiry into its competitive effects.

The drivers say the conduct cost them jobs, suppressed their wages and earning potential, made it hard to find comparable work in commercial trucking, and eliminated competitive bidding for their labor.{⁴}

How the Defendants Are Responding

All four defendants have moved to dismiss. They call the complaint “defective” and the allegations “vague and conclusory.”{⁵}

Their central legal argument turns on the difference between horizontal and vertical agreements. The defendants say the complaint describes, at most, a series of vertical arrangements between Kroger and its individual contractors, not a horizontal conspiracy among the carriers. One filing stated the plaintiffs “do not allege — because they cannot — that Werner, Swift, and USX conspired and agreed with each other” to refuse the drivers.{⁵} That distinction matters because vertical restraints are typically analyzed under the more flexible rule of reason rather than treated as per se illegal.

Werner Enterprises has also pushed back on the facts. The company said it “successfully onboarded 62% of former Quickway drivers” at a Kroger account in Newark, Ohio, and called its hiring approach “proactive” and “safety-first.” Werner also noted it does not currently do business with Kroger at the Shelbyville or Lynchburg facilities named in the complaint.{²} The defendants have also filed a motion opposing class certification.{⁵}

Why the Timing Matters

The case lands during a period of heavy federal scrutiny of employer agreements that restrict worker mobility. In January 2025, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued joint guidelines declaring that agreements between employers not to recruit, solicit, or hire workers are illegal whether written or unwritten, formal or informal, and can carry felony criminal exposure.{⁶}

The same guidelines took the position that a vertical business relationship — such as one between a customer and its suppliers — does not automatically shield a no-hire agreement from per se treatment. The agencies said a company can violate antitrust law by organizing or enforcing no-hire agreements among its business partners even when those partners are not direct competitors.{⁶} How the Ohio court draws that line is one of the central questions in this case.

Where the Case Stands

As of mid-2026, the lawsuit is in its early stages. The motions to dismiss are pending before the federal court in Ohio, no hearing date or ruling has been publicly reported, and the motion opposing class certification is also outstanding.{⁵} If the case survives dismissal, it would move into discovery, where internal communications between Kroger and the three carriers would likely determine whether the alleged “gentlemen’s agreement” existed as the drivers describe it.

1
Bloomberg Law. Kroger Accused of No-Hire Deals in Truck Driver Antitrust Suit
2
FreightWaves. 3 Carriers and Kroger Blocked Hiring of Ex-Quickway Drivers, Lawsuit
3
HR Dive. Kroger, Werner, Swift, US Xpress Complaint No Hiring Drivers
4
Yahoo Finance. 3 Carriers Kroger Blocked Hiring
5
Yahoo Finance. Trucking Carriers Kroger Counter Allegations
6
FTC. Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers