OOIDA: Landstar lawsuit ruling favors independent truckers

The association and its attorneys are currently reviewing the ruling to determine next steps in addressing the few aspects of the case that did not receive a favorable ruling from the court, OOIDA reported. Jim Johnston, president of OOIDA, emphasized the importance of resolving the restitution and disgorgement issues because of the deterrent potential it has in terms of carriers’ behavior.

The Trucker News Services

9/5/2008

GRAIN VALLEY, Mo. — The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) said it sees a ruling issued on Wednesday as a major win in the battle for transparency in trucking transactions and what motor carriers must reveal to their leased owner-operators.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit ruled the trial court erred in a case against Landstar. The association filed the lawsuit in November 2002 based on undisclosed chargebacks and markups deducted against pay to owner-operators. The ruling agrees with the Association’s contention that motor carriers who fail to disclose all charges and provide backup documentation on how those charges are calculated are not in compliance with federal leasing regulations, according to OOIDA.

“We’re very pleased that the court upheld the leasing regs and clearly ruled that Landstar was violating those regulations,” said Jim Johnston, president of OOIDA.

The association and its attorneys are currently reviewing the ruling to determine next steps in addressing the few aspects of the case that did not receive a favorable ruling from the court, OOIDA reported. The court upheld part of the lower court’s rulings and said that the carrier is not required to reimburse owner-operators for undisclosed deductions it made against drivers’ settlement sheets.

OOIDA may ask for a “rehearing” which means they could request the same three-judge panel rehear parts of the appeal, or they could request that all 15 judges on the 11th Circuit’s Appeals Court rehear parts of the arguments.

Johnston emphasized the importance of resolving the restitution and disgorgement issues because of the deterrent potential it has in terms of carriers’ behavior.

“If the only remedy is an injunction, which basically means the court says ‘hey guys, don’t do that again,’ then there is no deterrent for other carriers to not violate the regs,” Johnston said. “We feel if they didn’t disclose the charges then they should have to reimburse the owner-operators what they charged them. That would be a deterrent for other carriers.”

To read the ruling, click here.