Trancasa USA faces federal lawsuit over alleged age discrimination in driver recruitment

The federal government is suing a Texas trucking company for allegedly discriminating against older drivers during recruitment by citing insurance eligibility requirements to the hiring process.

The lawsuit was filed Sept. 24 by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) against Trancasa USA Inc. which is based in Pharr, Texas. The agency said the company routinely rejected applicants who were older truck drivers and asked for additional documentation on driving records and medical issues based on age.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in McAllen. The complaint alleges that Trancasa engaged in practices that violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against persons 40 years of age and older.

Trancasa USA has 171 power units and 198 drivers, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The company said it traveled about 18.8 million miles in 2025. The website shows a larger transportation network covering the United States, Mexico and Canada, advertising more than 400 transport units and 1,000 semi-trailers.

Insurance eligibility rules allegedly restricted older drivers

The EEOC complaint states that Trancasa introduced driver recruitment restrictions linked to eligibility criteria associated with a commercial liability insurance policy purchased in 2023.

Under the alleged requirements, drivers had to be at least 23 years old and no older than 65. Applicants younger than 25 or older than 60 were considered ineligible if they had recorded any traffic violations or accidents during the preceding three years.

The policy also allegedly required drivers aged 63 to 65 to submit a long-form medical examination report, officially known as Form MCSA-5875.

Ronald L. Phillips, acting regional attorney for the EEOC’s Dallas office, said employers cannot justify discriminatory employment decisions by claiming that another party, including an insurer or customer, requires or authorises such practices.

He added that agreements of this kind, as well as their implementation, are illegal when they involve discrimination, potentially exposing both parties to litigation and liability.

A 64-year-old applicant with a clean driving record was allegedly turned away

The complaint involves 64-year-old Gilbert Cerda, a veteran truck driver with over 20 years of experience and a clean driving record. He filed a discrimination charge resulting in an EEOC investigation and the lawsuit that followed.

Cerda applied for a driver’s job with Trancasa in November 2023 and met with a company recruiter, the agency said.

As the meeting went on, the recruiter told him that the company’s insurance carrier would have to approve his application because he was reaching the maximum age allowed under the policy.

A few weeks later, Cerda returned to Trancasa’s facility in Pharr to inquire about the status of his application. The recruiter allegedly told him the insurance firm had decided it could not employ him on account of his age.

According to the EEOC, in late November 2023, Trancasa refused to hire Cerda despite his professional credentials and driving record.

The agency says the case is not an isolated incident. The company is also blamed for not hiring various applicants, aged 60 or older, under the same eligibility criteria from as early as June 2023.

The lawsuit also alleges that Trancasa required drivers and applicants ages 63 to 65 to submit Form MCSA-5875 as a condition of employment but did not routinely require younger drivers to submit the form.

The EEOC says federal law does not require trucking companies to obtain or receive this long-form medical examination report.

The insurance provider has not been identified

The EEOC’s complaint does not name the insurance provider allegedly responsible for the disputed age-based eligibility requirements.

FMCSA records show that Trancasa changed insurance providers several times between June 2021 and June 2024. Although the filings establish reported liability insurance relationships, they do not independently confirm which insurer issued or enforced the specific age restrictions described in the lawsuit.

FreightWaves contacted Trancasa and several of its former insurance providers from the period surrounding Cerda’s application, seeking responses to the allegations and clarification of the relevant insurance coverage and driver eligibility policies.

None had responded by the time of publication.

EEOC seeks compensation and permanent changes to recruitment practices

The federal agency argues that Trancasa’s alleged practices deprived older applicants of employment opportunities and subjected certain drivers to different employment conditions because of their age.

The EEOC is seeking back pay, prejudgment interest, potential front pay or other employment-related relief, and liquidated damages for Cerda and other applicants or employees who may have been affected.

It is also asking the court to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting discriminatory employment practices and requiring the company to implement policies designed to ensure equal employment opportunities.

Before filing the lawsuit, the EEOC issued a reasonable-cause determination in March and attempted to settle the matter through its administrative conciliation process.

The agency further alleges that the violations were willful. However, these claims have not yet been adjudicated, and no monetary damages have been awarded.

The case is U.S. EEOC v. Trancasa USA Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00457, before the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Why the case matters

The lawsuit raises questions about how trucking companies apply insurance underwriting requirements when hiring drivers and where the lines are between insurers’ eligibility criteria and employers’ obligations under federal age-discrimination law. The result could shed light on the legal risk faced by carriers when they depend on insurance limitations that allegedly exclude otherwise qualified older applicants.