CR England Is Getting Sued...

This looks like people who did not do their homework. Also, I doubt they started here at TT. More people suing to not have to take responsibility for their actions. My $0.02. Class Action Certification Opens Floodgates Against C.R. England

I tend to agree with you Big Scott, people just didn't do their homework and now just want to put the blame of their actions on the C.R. England. Reading through the articme just made me think of these people as irresponsible children. But that is what some people are like. Agree?

This isn't the first of these lawsuits and won't be the last. A federal judge has already ruled in favor of the drivers against another company saying that if a driver is leasing from a company and bound specifically to that company freight and not allowed to pull other freight, they're essentially a company employee. There's one currently being put together against Celadon and Quality but has yet to be filed although that would be the least of their worries in light of a pending SEC investigation.

I'm intrigued. They went through school.... Signed lease contracts...had to work as an IC....but the suit is about not having driver positions. So how did they do a load as a lease if there were no positions.

I'm intrigued. They went through school.... Signed lease contracts...had to work as an IC....but the suit is about not having driver positions. So how did they do a load as a lease if there were no positions.

It's a way to lure in a person with no experience in the industry and have them for the bill. There's no obligation for the company to make you money beyond the fixed costs and there's a butt fire every seat.

I'm intrigued. They went through school.... Signed lease contracts...had to work as an IC....but the suit is about not having driver positions. So how did they do a load as a lease if there were no positions.

I didn't go to the article, but I agree with your conclusion, Rainy. It might be the plaintiffs want to describe their independent contractor gig as some sort of "pay to play" thing. And that seems stupid of the company has company drivers, who are all "playing" for free.

Celadon

I meant to put that link in my above reply for information regarding my Celadon comment.

I looked at and read the article twice. It seems the ALLEGATION is that C.R. England trained them and then got them to sign a lease on a truck with the promise they would be able to haul loads with C.R. England and were denied the opportunity. If that be true then I can see where the case has merit.

I may be able to shed some light on this (I had a former C.R. England driver as a co-driver for a while.) He claimed that after going through C.R. England's driving school with a promised company job with an agreed upon term of employment to pay back the training costs some drivers would be taken aside and be told that C.R. England had, "accidentally" hired too many company drivers.

Some drivers would then be offered the option of becoming a lessee operator (straight out of school, no time on a trainer's truck). Others would just be sent home and told they would have to pay back the cost of the school. Some drivers choosing to be lessee operators were then told that no trucks were available to lease. These drivers had fulfilled their part of the deal (showing up and earning their CDL), but C.R. England didn't let them work off the cost of their schooling as company drivers. This matches the description in the class action suit.

I'd probably sue too if CRST had done that to me.

From the Overdrive Article - as the linked article was kinda vague:

Plaintiffs Charles Roberts and Kenneth McKay say the companies recruit students to CRE’s driver training schools with promises that they can become a company driver or enjoy strong earnings as a independent contractor. But truckers say company driver positions were largely unavailable. Further, they allege driving schools students were subject to a misinformation campaign to entice them to lease trucks from England and become independent contractor drivers affiliated with the company.

What they're alleging is that they were FORCED TO LEASE. It would suck to go to school with the intention of being a company driver, then get told there are "no company positions" (which we all know to be a crock of crap) and forced to take a lease or go home (which is what these drivers are alleging). The fact that the judge approved it as a Class Action - means than ANYBODY THAT LEASED in that period of time can join the class.

A whole different story than the other suit mentioned on this thread, which was against Swift.

I posted about it for discussion here a couple of weeks ago. The story on that one, reads a little different than this one. Swift was already picking up the tab for a lawsuit won against Central Refrigerated when they purchased them.

Now - we can debate whether this is a result of buyers remorse/butthurt on the part of the drivers - or that some companies truly are predatory in their leasing practices (or pushing people into them) - which in fact there really are some. Or that folks shouldn't get roped into a potential lose/lose deal, without really doing their due diligence. I think it's a little of all the above.

What's going to happen is that trucking companies are going to need to get 6 degrees of separation from their leasing companies. Even if they are different companies, with different names - if the principals are the same - judges and jurors can make the connection easy enough.

I doubt they are going to stop their lease programs - they are still a WIN/WIN for the company - even if they have to battle a lawsuit here and there, and revise their contracts and business model.

Rick