The OnTrac lawsuit landscape centers on one recurring claim: that the last-mile delivery company misclassifies its drivers as independent contractors to avoid paying overtime, minimum wage, and work-related expenses. Multiple class and collective actions are pending in federal courts in California, Virginia, and New York, and they build on a $10.5 million California settlement OnTrac’s predecessor entity paid in 2022 to resolve nearly identical allegations.
What the Driver Lawsuits Allege
OnTrac does not hire most of its drivers directly. It contracts with intermediaries called Regional Service Providers or Master Contractors, who then recruit and pay the drivers. Plaintiffs across the current cases argue this layered structure is designed to push wage-and-hour obligations off OnTrac’s books while OnTrac keeps the kind of day-to-day control that legally makes it the employer.
The control allegations are consistent from case to case. Drivers say OnTrac assigns routes and packages, sets delivery deadlines, requires company uniforms and branded vehicles, mandates use of proprietary scanning and tracking software, and retains authority over hiring and firing decisions nominally made by subcontractors.1ClassAction.org. Lawsuit: California OnTrac Drivers Misclassified as Independent Contractors, Denied Proper Pay2Katz Banks Kumin LLP. OnTrac Lawsuit
Pay is structured on a flat-rate basis, per route, per stop, or per package rather than hourly. Plaintiffs say that once you count the hours actually worked and the expenses drivers cover themselves — fuel, vehicle rental, insurance, and scanner equipment — effective pay falls below minimum wage, and overtime never gets paid at all. The California Herrera complaint alleged 12-hour shifts delivering more than 200 packages a day for $1.75 per package under one subcontractor, or $150 per day plus $1.19 per package under another.3Katz Banks Kumin LLP. Herrera v. OnTrac Logistics Complaint
The $10.5 Million California Settlement
Two earlier California class actions, Thomas Lewis v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc. and Eliseo Leal v. Express Messenger Systems, Inc., were coordinated in Los Angeles County Superior Court under JCCP No. 4789. They raised the same misclassification scheme against OnTrac’s predecessor entity, Express Messenger Systems.4CPT Group. Notice of Class Action Settlement, Express Messenger Systems Wage and Hour Cases
OnTrac settled for $10.5 million. The class covered roughly 9,000 California drivers classified as independent contractors who did last-mile delivery work between February 2009 and August 2021.5CPT Group. Amended Class Action Settlement Agreement After $4.2 million in attorneys’ fees, litigation costs, PAGA penalties, and administrative expenses, roughly $5.79 million was distributed to drivers on a pro-rata basis by tenure.4CPT Group. Notice of Class Action Settlement, Express Messenger Systems Wage and Hour Cases Preliminary approval came on August 6, 2021, and final approval on January 6, 2022.6CPT Group. Lewis v. Express Messenger Systems Case Administration OnTrac denied wrongdoing as part of the settlement.
The California Consolidated Case: Herrera and Branson
In October 2024, driver Eleazar Herrera sued OnTrac Logistics, Inc. and two subcontractors in Contra Costa County Superior Court, invoking California’s ABC test for worker classification. The complaint also pointed to a 2019 San Francisco Superior Court trial in which OnTrac and one of the same subcontractor defendants were found to have jointly employed and misclassified a driver.3Katz Banks Kumin LLP. Herrera v. OnTrac Logistics Complaint
OnTrac removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in January 2025. It is now before Judge Rita F. Lin as case number 3:25-cv-00022.7PacerMonitor. Herrera v. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. et al A related case brought by driver Brian Branson was linked through a related-case order in February 2026, and the consolidated proceeding is captioned In re OnTrac Logistics, Inc. Delivery Drivers Litigation (25-cv-00022-RFL).8PacerMonitor. Branson v. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. et al
A consolidated amended complaint is due June 30, 2026. The class certification hearing is set for April 20, 2027, and will decide whether the misclassification claims can proceed on behalf of a broad class of California drivers.7PacerMonitor. Herrera v. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. et al The Branson docket was terminated in April 2026 after Judge Lin denied a remand motion, though the record does not clarify whether that reflects consolidation into the broader case or another resolution.8PacerMonitor. Branson v. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. et al
The Nationwide FLSA Collective: Hunter v. LaserShip
A separate front opened in Virginia. In December 2024, drivers Oswald Huggins, Abdul Ngobeh, and Kelvin Hunter sued LaserShip, Inc. (doing business as OnTrac Final Mile) in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging the company and its contractors jointly employed drivers but failed to pay overtime under the Fair Labor Standards Act.9PacerMonitor. Huggins et al v. LaserShip Inc., Complaint The case is now captioned Hunter v. LaserShip, Inc. d/b/a OnTrac Final Mile, before Senior Judge Anthony J. Trenga.
On May 14, 2025, Judge Trenga conditionally certified a nationwide collective, finding a “modest factual showing” that OnTrac’s misclassification was a common policy affecting drivers across the country.10Virginia Lawyers Weekly. Employment Notice Authorized in FLSA Delivery Driver Overtime Suit The court authorized a 90-day notice period for drivers who worked for OnTrac through Master Contractors at any point since December 2021 and who had not signed arbitration agreements.11Hunter v. LaserShip Class Notice. Notice of Collective Action Lawsuit The opt-in deadline was October 6, 2025. Court filings noted that OnTrac’s four Virginia warehouses alone employed about 4,100 delivery drivers through roughly 745 Master Contractors.12vLex. Hunter v. LaserShip, Inc.
The New York Overlap: West v. LaserShip
OnTrac tried to block Hunter under the “first-to-file” rule, pointing to an earlier FLSA collective action, West v. LaserShip, Inc., pending in the Southern District of New York on the same theory. Judge Trenga declined to bar Hunter, noting that the West court had not yet certified a collective and that drivers needed the chance to preserve their claims before statutes of limitations ran.10Virginia Lawyers Weekly. Employment Notice Authorized in FLSA Delivery Driver Overtime Suit
In September 2025, Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave in New York granted partial conditional certification in West, but limited the collective to drivers at two of nine New York warehouses (Maspeth and Mineola), finding insufficient evidence of a company-wide unlawful policy at the others. The court also denied equitable tolling.13Casemine. Hunter v. LaserShip, Inc., Representation Dispute Order By October 2025, the FLSA claims of Hunter plaintiffs who had delivered out of Maspeth and Mineola were deemed transferred into the West proceeding.
Other Active OnTrac Litigation
Two other OnTrac matters are pending but do not involve driver pay. In July 2025, OnTrac and LaserShip sued former employee Brian Hoolahan and Speed Xpress, Inc. in the District of New Jersey (1:25-cv-13140), alleging misappropriation of trade secrets under the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act. The case is before Judge Renee Marie Bumb and remains in discovery, with a status conference scheduled for July 2, 2026.14PacerMonitor. OnTrac Logistics, Inc. et al v. Brian Hoolahan et al
Separately, OnTrac disclosed in August 2025 that it had detected unauthorized access to its network between April 13 and April 15, 2025, affecting approximately 40,017 individuals. Compromised data included names, dates of birth, Social Security numbers, driver’s license numbers, medical information, and health insurance information. The company offered 12 months of credit monitoring and identity protection. At least one law firm announced it was investigating potential class action claims, but no breach lawsuit had been filed as of the available research.15MSD Legal. OnTrac Data Breach Class Action Investigation
Where Things Stand
None of the active employment cases have reached settlement or trial. The California consolidated litigation heads toward class certification in April 2027. The Hunter FLSA collective continues in Virginia, with the West action running on a parallel track in New York and the scope of each still being fought over. The trade secrets case is in discovery, and the data breach is under investigation but not yet in court. OnTrac has not admitted wrongdoing in any of these matters.