Swift Transportation Lawsuit: Settlements, Class Actions, and 401(k)

Swift Transportation has faced a string of major lawsuits over the last two decades, most notably a $100 million class-action settlement in 2020 resolving claims that the carrier misclassified roughly 20,000 lease-operator drivers as independent contractors. A Swift Transportation lawsuit typically involves how drivers are paid, trained, hired, or classified, and since the 2017 merger that created Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings, those liabilities have followed the combined company. Knight-Swift and its subsidiaries have accumulated more than $117 million in penalties and settlements across 29 tracked wage-and-hour matters alone.¹

The $100 Million Driver Misclassification Settlement

The largest case against Swift began in December 2009, when lease-operator truck drivers filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona. The case, Van Dusen et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. (CV 10-899-PHX-JWS), was assigned to Judge John W. Sedwick.²

About 20,000 drivers had leased trucks from Interstate Equipment Leasing to drive for Swift between December 1999 and September 2017. They argued that Swift treated them as full-time employees in practice, controlling their schedules and retaining the power to terminate leases at will, while denying them minimum wage protections and making deductions from their pay for equipment, insurance, fuel, tolls, and maintenance.³ The core theory: by classifying these workers as contractors, Swift avoided obligations under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including paying minimum wage for all hours on the job.

The case took nearly ten years to resolve, largely because of a long fight over whether Swift could force drivers into arbitration. In January 2017, Judge Sedwick ruled that the named plaintiffs were employees as a matter of law for purposes of the Federal Arbitration Act, blocking that effort.⁴ The Ninth Circuit had earlier reversed a ruling that compelled arbitration, and the Supreme Court denied Swift’s petition for certiorari.⁵

The parties filed a settlement agreement on March 11, 2019, with Knight-Swift agreeing to pay a gross settlement fund of $100 million.⁶ Judge Sedwick granted final approval on January 22, 2020, and the settlement became effective on March 6, 2020, after the appeal period expired. Checks were mailed to participating class members beginning April 6, 2020. Individual payout amounts varied by driver and were not publicly disclosed.⁴

Washington Overtime Class Action Still Active

A newer case remains open. Carlson v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (Case No. 3:23-cv-05722), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, alleges that Swift has been shortchanging drivers on overtime pay in violation of Washington state law.⁷ On December 9, 2024, Judge Robert J. Bryan granted class-action status, defining the class as all Swift truck drivers who have been Washington residents at any time since April 21, 2020.⁸

As of March 2026, the case is still being litigated. Swift is arguing that its truckers are exempt from Washington’s overtime laws and that drivers should not be compensated for time spent off duty or in a sleeper berth.⁹

Other Wage-and-Hour Settlements

Beyond the headline misclassification case, Swift and its Knight-Swift affiliate have settled several other pay disputes:

Burnell v. Swift Transportation settled for $7.25 million. About 11,000 California truck drivers alleged they were underpaid. A federal court in the Central District of California granted final approval on April 29, 2022.¹⁰
Griffus v. Knight Transportation settled in 2015 for $3.6 million. Drivers in Oregon alleged Knight failed to pay minimum wage, made wrongful deductions, and paid wages late.¹
Helde v. Knight Transportation settled in December 2017 for $1.45 million. Washington-based drivers alleged Knight failed to pay for all work performed, missed rest break pay, and made unlawful deductions.¹¹

Smaller penalties, ranging from a few thousand dollars to roughly $1 million, have been assessed against various Knight-Swift entities by state labor agencies and the federal Wage and Hour Division.¹

Swift Driving Academy CDL Testing Case

Swift’s in-house driver training program produced its own class action. In Ham et al. v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. (Case No. 2:09-cv-02145-JTF), roughly 9,500 former students at Swift’s Driving Academy in Millington, Tennessee, sued the company in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee.¹²

The academy had served as a third-party CDL examiner for the State of Tennessee. A 2008 investigation by the FBI and the Tennessee Department of Safety found that Swift had not followed state and federal CDL testing requirements, and former Swift testers testified that management intentionally cut corners on state-mandated procedures because of the high volume of students. Tennessee then invalidated the CDLs Swift’s academy had issued, forcing students to retest.¹²

After the court granted class certification and the Sixth Circuit denied Swift’s appeal, the case settled. Swift agreed to write off approximately $16 to $17 million in unpaid student loans and to pay up to $650 per class member for documented damages.¹³ Swift denied all wrongdoing and said it settled to avoid the cost of continued litigation. Fewer than 730 individuals filed claims before the deadline.

Background Check Lawsuit

In Ellis v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (Case No. 3:13-cv-00473), filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia in July 2013, Swift was accused of violating the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act by failing to inform job applicants of their right to access and dispute background check reports used in hiring decisions.¹⁴ The class ultimately covered about 181,000 drivers who applied to Swift between July 2008 and September 2012. The court granted final approval on October 7, 2014, and the settlement was increased from the originally proposed $4.4 million to $5.053 million to account for the larger class.¹⁵ Swift denied the allegations.

Knight-Swift 401(k) Retirement Plan Settlement

Two lawsuits alleged that Knight-Swift breached its fiduciary duties under ERISA by charging excessive administrative fees in its 401(k) plan and improperly using plan forfeitures. The consolidated case, Hagins et al. v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Incorporated (Case No. 2:22-cv-01835), was heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona before Judge Roslyn O. Silver.¹⁶

The parties reached a settlement agreement in August 2025, with Knight-Swift agreeing to pay $3 million. The class covers roughly 100,000 workers who participated in the company’s retirement plan between October 2016 and November 2025. A federal judge approved the settlement on May 14, 2026, with the two named plaintiffs each receiving $10,000. Knight-Swift denied any wrongdoing and said it agreed to settle to avoid further litigation costs.¹⁷

National Origin Discrimination Claim Dismissed

Not every claim against Swift has succeeded. In April 2024, an Afghan-born U.S. resident filed Hamdard v. Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC (Case No. 2:24-cv-00943) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, alleging that Swift’s policy of requiring applicants to hold a U.S.-issued driver’s license for at least 12 months discriminated based on national origin in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiff held a U.S. commercial driver’s license, an international driver’s license, and three years of driving experience in Afghanistan, and argued that the policy had a disparate impact on applicants born outside the United States.¹⁸

Senior Judge Douglas L. Rayes granted Swift’s motion to dismiss with prejudice on March 14, 2025. The plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit, but the appeal was dismissed by stipulation on December 23, 2025, ending the case.¹⁹

Where the Liability Now Sits

Swift Transportation and Knight Transportation merged in September 2017, creating Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Inc. Under the merger structure, Swift became a subsidiary of the newly named holding company, and Knight-Swift inherited Swift’s existing legal liabilities.²⁰ The $100 million misclassification settlement was paid by Knight-Swift after the merger closed, and the newer overtime, 401(k), and hiring cases have all named Knight-Swift entities. With the Washington overtime case still active and the ERISA settlement only just finalized, the company’s litigation exposure continues to develop.

1
Good Jobs First. Knight-Swift Transportation – Violation Tracker
2
Getman Sweeney & Dunn. Class Action Settlement Agreement
3
KJZZ. Swift Settles Driver Class Action Claims for $100 Million
4
Getman Sweeney & Dunn. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.
5
Public Citizen. Swift Transportation Co. v. Van Dusen
6
Landline Media. Swift Agrees to $100 Million Settlement in Misclassification Lawsuit
7
PACER Monitor. Carlson v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona
8
Landline Media. Swift Overtime Pay Lawsuit Granted Class-Action Status
9
Law360. Swift Says Its Truckers Are Exempt From Washington OT Law
10
Law360. Truckers, Swift Get Final OK for $7.25M Wage Suit Settlement
11
Terrell Marshall Law Group. Helde v. Knight Transportation
12
Watson Burns. Truck Driver Class Action
13
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Swift Transportation Press Release
14
Trucking Info. Swift Agrees to $4.4 Million Settlement Over Driver Class-Action Lawsuit
15
Bloomberg Law. $5 Million Deal for Swift and 181,000 Drivers on Background Check Claims Has Court’s OK
16
Knight-Swift ERISA Settlement. Robert Hagins et al. v. Knight-Swift Transportation Holdings Incorporated
17
Trucking Dive. Court OKs $3M Payout in Knight-Swift Employee Retirement Case
18
Trucking Dive. Swift Transportation’s Driver License Rule Faces National Origin Discrimination Claim
19
PACER Monitor. Hamdard v. Swift Transportation Company of Arizona LLC
20
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Swift Transportation Company S-4 Filing