EEOC Sues Texas Carrier Over Insurance-Based Age Caps on Drivers

Can a motor carrier refuse to hire a driver over 60 because its insurance policy sets an age cap?

No. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit September 24 against Pharr, Texas-based Trancasa USA Inc., alleging the carrier systematically rejected older truck driver applicants based on age restrictions in a commercial liability insurance policy purchased in 2023. The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas in McAllen, alleges Trancasa violated the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), which prohibits employment discrimination against individuals 40 and older.

The case centers on Gilbert Cerda, a 64-year-old truck driver with more than two decades of experience and a clean driving record. Cerda applied for a truck driving position with Trancasa in November 2023 and met with a company recruiter. The recruiter told Cerda his application would require review by Trancasa's insurance carrier because he was approaching the policy's maximum eligible age. Several weeks later, when Cerda returned to Trancasa's facility in Pharr to inquire about his application, the recruiter informed him that the insurance provider had determined he could not be hired because of his age. The EEOC complaint alleges Trancasa rejected Cerda around November 27, 2023, despite his qualifications and driving history.

What age restrictions did the insurance policy impose?

According to the September 24 complaint, Trancasa restricted driver hiring based on eligibility standards associated with a commercial liability insurance policy purchased in 2023. The standards required drivers to be at least 23 years old and no older than 65. Drivers younger than 25 or older than 60 who had any traffic violations or accidents during the previous three years were considered ineligible. The policy also required drivers ages 63 to 65 to provide a long-form medical examination report, known as Form MCSA-5875.

The EEOC contends Cerda was not the only applicant affected. Since at least June 2023, the company allegedly refused to hire multiple applicants over age 60 under the same eligibility standards. The agency also alleges Trancasa required drivers and applicants ages 63 to 65 to submit Form MCSA-5875 as a condition of employment while not routinely imposing the same requirement on younger drivers. The EEOC states that federal law does not require trucking companies to obtain or be provided with the long-form medical examination report.

What does the EEOC say about insurance-based hiring restrictions?

"Employers cannot discriminate against workers by claiming that the discrimination is required or authorized by a contract with another party, such as a customer or insurance provider," said Ronald L. Phillips, acting EEOC Dallas regional attorney, in a statement. "Such agreements and their implementation are illegal, and both parties to the contract place themselves at considerable risk of potential litigation and liability."

The EEOC alleges Trancasa's practices violated federal law by denying employment opportunities to older applicants and subjecting certain drivers to different employment conditions because of their age. The agency is seeking back pay, prejudgment interest, potential employment or front pay, and liquidated damages for Cerda and other affected applicants and employees. The complaint also seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting discriminatory employment practices and requiring Trancasa to implement policies ensuring equal employment opportunities.

What is Trancasa USA's operation size?

Trancasa USA operates 171 power units and employs 198 drivers, with approximately 18.8 million miles reported in 2025, according to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The company's website describes a broader transportation operation serving the U.S., Mexico and Canada, advertising more than 400 transport units and 1,000 semi-trailers.

The EEOC complaint does not identify the insurance provider responsible for the disputed driver eligibility standards. Trancasa switched between several insurance providers between June 2021 and June 2024. The FMCSA filings establish a reported liability insurance relationship, but do not independently establish which insurance provider issued or enforced the specific age-based requirements described in the lawsuit.

What happens next in the case?

The EEOC issued a reasonable-cause determination in March and attempted to resolve the matter through its administrative conciliation process before filing suit. The agency alleges the violations were willful. Those allegations have not been adjudicated, and no monetary damages have been awarded. The case is U.S. EEOC v. Trancasa USA Inc., No. 7:26-cv-00457, in the Southern District of Texas.

What small fleets need to know about age-based hiring restrictions

Motor carriers cannot use insurance underwriting requirements as a shield against ADEA liability. If your commercial liability policy includes age caps or imposes stricter documentation requirements on drivers over 60, you are still bound by federal age-discrimination law. The EEOC's position is clear: a contract with an insurance provider does not authorize employment discrimination.

Small fleets facing pressure from insurers to limit driver age should document the insurer's requirements and consult employment counsel before rejecting an applicant based on age. The EEOC's complaint against Trancasa alleges the carrier rejected multiple applicants over 60 since June 2023, suggesting a pattern that elevated the agency's enforcement interest. A single rejection can trigger a charge; a pattern invites a lawsuit.

If your insurer requires Form MCSA-5875 (the long-form medical examination report) for drivers over a certain age, apply the requirement uniformly or not at all. The EEOC alleges Trancasa required the form only for drivers ages 63 to 65, creating a disparate condition of employment. Federal law does not require the long-form report for CDL holders, who already must hold a valid medical examiner's certificate (Form MCSA-5876) to maintain their commercial driver's license. Imposing additional medical documentation on older drivers without a business necessity unrelated to age is a red flag.

Carriers shopping for a digital carrier-packet workflow should ensure their onboarding systems flag age-based restrictions in insurance policies before those restrictions become hiring practice. The EEOC's complaint does not name the insurer, but the agency's statement makes both parties to the contract liable. If your insurer's underwriting guidelines conflict with ADEA protections, the carrier absorbs the enforcement risk.