Court Approves Settlement

We are one huge step closer to getting some payback for the slave labor we endured at the hands of Swift Transportation. It will still be a while before checks are cut. There is a 4 month period for responses from drivers to the notices they are getting ready to send out. Then there will probably be a couple more months to actually figure up how much each person gets and send out checks. So be patient but know that relief is coming.

They are trying to update your contact information so Settlement Services, Inc. and Getman Sweeney Law can keep you informed and send you important documents and information about what is going on. In an email I received from one of the paralegals…

IF WE HAVE NOT SPOKEN WITH YOU WITHIN THE PAST 30 DAYS, please reply to this email with

  • Your full name as it appeared/appears on your settlements;
  • Your driver code if you know it;
  • The last four digits of your social security number;
  • Your current mailing address; and
  • Your phone number.

We will update our records accordingly.

So if you are affected by this case and have not heard from or talked to the lawyers in the last 30 days, I suggest you contact them. The preferred method of contact is email:

James Sherwood


260 Fair St.

Kingston, NY 12401

(845) 255-9370

Fax: (845) 255-8649

Settlement submitted in Swift Misclassification lawsuit

Apparently a settlement agreement has been agreed to by Getman and Swift.

A fund is going to be set up in the amount of $100 million to be distributed to some 20,000 drivers. after lawyers fees and taxes… The average pay out will probably be in the $3,000 range per driver. The actual amount will vary based on number of weeks employed, assumed hours worked, and amount paid during that period. By my estimates that means the average payout could be as little as $500 per driver and checks may not go out until late 2019 or early 2020, if the agreement is approved by the court.


Knight-Swift said in a statement that the amount of settlement had been accounted for on its balance sheet as of December 31, 2018, and “does not expect that the settlement will have a material impact on its future results of operations.”

Personally I think if it didn’t impact their operations, it was too light of a punishment for stealing from us to benefit themselves.

You can read the proposed Settlement Agreement here.

Swift to give oral… arguments…

Oral Argument Date Set – Posted January 9, 2018

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has set March 16, 2018, at 9:30 a.m. PST to hear oral arguments on Swift’s appeal of the District Court’s January 2017 ruling that this case cannot go to arbitration because the named-plaintiff drivers were/are employees—not independent contractors—as a matter of law. Each side will have 20 minutes to present their argument and respond to the Judges’ questions.

Swift’s appeal does not dispute that the District Court reached the correct decision—that the Plaintiff drivers are employees under the law. Instead, Swift argues that the District Court erred by considering the Lease as well as the “Contractor Agreement” and the parties’ relationship in reaching its decision.

The Court will also hear arguments regarding Swift’s mandamus petition; Swift contends that the District Court should not have lifted the stay on discovery, granting Plaintiffs access to Defendant’s records of those drivers who may have claims in the case.

Drivers had argued, successfully, that because this case has been slowed down, hindered, and repeatedly delayed for years by the Defendant, the information in Swift’s records would not be current or useful if, or when, a Collective Action is certified and Plaintiffs asked for the records so that we could begin the process of ensuring that the contact information in those records is up-to-date and accurate in order to send notice to a group of over 16,000 drivers who may be eligible to join this case, if and when that should occur.

Typically, cases such as these are certified (or not) fairly early after filing and if certification is granted notice is mailed to all the people who might be eligible to join. Plaintiffs moved for collective action back in May of 2010— but this process was stopped in the summer of 2010 by Swift’s Motion to Compel Arbitration. Now that the Arizona District Court has ruled against Swift’s arbitration motion, and said that the case must remain in federal court, the next step after these appeals will be to revisit the class and collective action motions.

The 9th Circuit live-streams oral arguments, and archives them for viewing afterward. When a link to the live stream is available, we will post it here so drivers can watch the hearing live, or later, at a convenient time.

Swift’s Appeal of January 2017 Ruling — Posted June 15, 2017

On May 24th, 2017, Swift filed an appeal to the Arizona District Court’s Order and Opinion (Jan. 2017) in which the District Court ruled that the five named-plaintiff drivers are employees, not independent contractors as a matter of law, for the purposes of § 1 of the Federal Arbitration Act. That ruling was important for many reasons — first, it prevented the case from being sent to arbitration, and second, the Court agreed with Plaintiffs that drivers are employees as a matter of law. Swift’s appeal does not dispute that the District Court reached the correct decision. Instead, Swift argues that the District Court erred by considering the Lease as well as the “Contractor Agreement” in reaching its decision. The drivers’ response to the appeal brief is due on Thursday, June 22nd, and Swift has until July 7th to file their response. Once the appeal is fully briefed the court may or may not assign a date for oral argument.

The Drivers have moved to renew (883) their Collective Action Motion (105), which is fully briefed by both sides, and have moved for Class Certification of a nationwide class of Lease Operators (884). If class certification is granted, notice will issue to all drivers who may have eligible claims. However, over Plaintiffs’ objections, the District Court stayed the case for the duration of the appeal. Plaintiffs moved the Court to lift the stay in order to require Swift to provide names and contact information for all drivers who may be able to participate in this case, and the Court required Swift to provide this information by June 19th.

Swift sold?

Dear Swift Owner/Operator:

This morning, we announced that Swift Transportation and Knight Transportation have reached an agreement to operate under common ownership. Both companies will continue to run independently and will maintain separate brands. Bringing together these two long-standing, industry-leading trucking companies means a combined strength of resources, allowing us to improve safety and better our customer and driver experiences. The joint press release we issued this morning provides further details about the transaction. It is now available, along with FAQs, on our O/O portal and on our website.

Swift is offering an Independent Contractor Capacity Retention Bonus to all eligible Swift independent contractors in recognition of your commitment to the success of this business. Those eligible will include all independent contractors with active ICOAs –Independent Contractor Operating Agreements – between May 1, 2017 and the close of the transaction. It is anticipated the transaction will close in the third quarter of 2017. Please see Independent Contractor Capacity Retention Bonus letter for more details.

Also, I want you to know that I have chosen to pursue other opportunities following the close of the transaction. Likewise, our CFO, Ginnie Henkels, has chosen to step down at that time. I want to assure you that Knight’s leadership team is committed to the same principles and level of integrity that we live byevery day, and I have confidence that they will continue working toward our vision.

Once the transaction is completed, Kevin Knight, Knight’s current Executive Chairman, will assume therole of Swift President. Ginnie and I will continue at Swift until the close of the transaction to ensure a seamless transition. I’m proud of all we have accomplished together, and promise that I will continue to root all of you on in the future.

For the sake of open communication and transparency, I invite all of you to join Ginnie and me on a Company-wide conference call, this afternoon, at 4:30 PM (ET)/1:30 PM (PT). The call-in number is (844) 236-5642, in the U.S., and (562) 508-4617, outside the U.S. The event passcode is 4785913.

To maximize efficiency, I will address the organization and then answer your pre-submitted questions. Please submit all questions in the form of an email, prior to 3:00 PM (ET)/12:00 PM (PT), today. That will allow me to answer as many questions as possible.

If you receive any questions from other Independent Contractors, please refer them to the press release on our website or have them

I thank you for your continued hard work and dedication to SWIFT and I want you to know that I amconfident that SWIFT’s future holds even greater opportunities for you, in the future.


Richard Stocking President & CEO

Additional information and where to find it.

Investors and security holders are urged to carefully review and consider each of Swift TransportationCompany’s (the “Company”) and Knight Transportation, Inc.’s (“Knight”) public filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), including but not limited to their Annual Reports on Form 10-K, their proxy statements, their Current Reports on Form 8-K and their Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q. The documents filed by the Company with the SEC may be obtained free of charge at Company’s website at or at the SEC’s website at These documents may also be obtained free of charge from the Company by requesting them in writing to 2200 S. 75th Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85043, or by telephone at 1-800-800-2200. The documents filed by Knight with the SEC may beobtained free of charge at Knight’s website or at the SEC’s website These documents may also be obtained free of charge from Knight by requesting them in writing to 20002 N 19th Ave, Phoenix, AZ 85027, or by telephone at 602-269-9700.

In connection with the proposed transaction, the Company intends to file a registration statement on Form S-4 with the SEC which will include a joint proxy statement of Knight and the Company and a prospectus of the Company, and each party will file other documents regarding the proposed transaction with the SEC. BEFORE MAKING ANY VOTING OR INVESTMENT DECISION, INVESTORS AND SECURITY HOLDERS OF THE COMPANY AND KNIGHT ARE URGED TO CAREFULLY READ THE ENTIRE REGISTRATION STATEMENT AND JOINT PROXY STATEMENT/PROSPECTUS, WHEN THEY BECOME AVAILABLE, AS WELL AS ANY AMENDMENTS OR SUPPLEMENTS TO THESE DOCUMENTS AND ANY OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE SEC, BECAUSE THEY WILL CONTAIN IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPOSED TRANSACTION. A definitive joint proxy statement/prospectus will be sent to the shareholders of each party seeking the required shareholder approval. Investors and security holders will be able to obtain the registration statement and the joint proxy statement/prospectus free of charge from the SEC’s website or from the Company or Knight as described above. The contents of the websites referenced above are not deemed to be incorporated by reference into the registration statement or the joint proxy statement/prospectus.

Certain Information Regarding Participants

The Company and its directors and executive officers may be deemed participants in the solicitation of proxies in connection with the proposed transaction. You can find information about the Company’sdirectors and executive officers in its definitive proxy statement for the 2016 Annual Meeting of Stockholders, which was filed with the SEC on April 22, 2016, and in other documents filed with the SEC by the Company and its directors and executive officers. Additional information regarding the interests of these directors and executive officers in the proposed transaction will be included in the registration statement, joint proxy statement/prospectus or other documents filed with the SEC if any when they become available. You may obtain these documents (when they become available) free of charge at the SEC’s web site at and from the Company as described above.

No Offer or Solicitations

This document shall not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy any securities, nor shall there be any sale of securities in any jurisdiction in which such offer, solicitation or sale would be unlawful prior to registration or qualification under the securities laws of any such jurisdiction. No offering of securities shall be made except by means of a prospectus meeting the requirements of Section 10 of the U.S. Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

This just makes guys and gals on the front lines sick!

SWIFT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY (NYSE:SWFT) Files An 8-K Departure of Directors or Certain Officers; Election of Directors; Appointment of Certain Officers; Compensatory Arrangements of Certain Officers

On February 28, 2017, the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Swift Transportation Company (the “Company”) approved a new compensation package for Virginia Henkels, the Company’s Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer. The new compensation package was recommended by the Company’s compensation consultant, Pearl Meyer and Partners, LLC. For 2017, Ms. Henkels will receive an annual base salary of $400,000. In addition, Ms. Henkels will receive (1) a short-term annual cash incentive bonus with a target award equal to 75% of Ms. Henkel’s annual base salary, subject to the Company’s achievement of specified levels of financial performance, and (2) a long-term equity incentive award with a target goal equal to 150% of Ms. Henkel’s annual base salary. The long-term equity incentive award will be comprised of three components: (i) stock options; (ii) time-based restricted stock units; and (iii) performance units. The vesting of the performance units is subject to the Company achieving specified levels of financial performance.

Trucking Co. Driver Contract Row Paused For 9th Circ. Review

Law360, New York (February 27, 2017, 6:28 PM EST) — An Arizona federal judge agreed Friday to hit pause on a proposed class action alleging Swift Transportation Co. Inc. misclassified its drivers as independent contractors until the Ninth Circuit hears the trucking giant’s challenge to a recent ruling that its drivers’ contractor agreements were contracts of employment.
Senior U.S. District Judge John W. Sedwick granted Swift’s request to stay all proceedings in the long-running dispute, including a pending motion to certify the class, until the Ninth Circuit considers the judge’s Jan. 5 denial of the trucking company’s motion to compel arbitration.

Swift is challenging Judge Sedwick’s decision to weigh the terms of the contracts between the five truck driver plaintiffs and Swift, as well as the terms of the lease agreements between the plaintiffs and Interstate Equipment Leasing — Swift’s equipment and truck leasing affiliate — in concluding that Swift’s drivers’ contractor agreements were contracts of employment, making them exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act.

“Here, while the court believes its conclusion is correct, it recognizes that the appeal presents serious legal questions as to how a court should properly determine whether a contract of employment existed,” Judge Sedwick said. “Indeed, the Ninth Circuit stated that the issue was one of first impression.”

Judge Sedwick in January ruled that the plaintiffs had contracts of employment making them exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act and the Arizona Arbitration Act, and rejected Swift’s bid to force the fight into arbitration. The judge weighed factors such as the extent of Swift’s control over the drivers, the payment structure, opportunity for profit and loss, autonomy, duration of relationship, and type of work to be done by the drivers to determine an employment relationship existed.

In a separate order also issued Friday, Judge Sedwick denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction blocking Swift from requiring current contract drivers, known as lease operators, to sign a new independent contractor operating agreement before March 1. The plaintiffs had argued that some of the language in that new agreement was problematic, particularly two new provisions the company inserted that set forth payment and indemnification obligations in the event of a “reclassification decision” in this case.

They claimed that the two challenged provisions in the new agreement are misleading and confusing to current lease operators because they suggest that participating in the instant class action could mean that they’d end up having to pay damages and attorneys’ fees, according to the order. That kind of misunderstanding potentially undermines the plaintiffs’ prospects for getting putative class members to participate, the drivers claimed.

The judge agreed that the provisions were misleading and confusing, and required Swift to correct some of the language in a notice it was sending out to those contract drivers.

“Here, an employee who signs an agreement does not understand the legal subtleties that could affect how those provisions are applied after the resolution of this class action and may well believe that he now has to avoid participation in the case or risk financial harm,” the judge said in the order.

The judge said two paragraphs in the new agreement seemed to suggest that an improper method of damage calculation and fee shifting could lead to class members owing Swift money regardless of the outcome of this litigation. As such, the judge ordered Swift to send out a corrective notice explaining that the payment obligations and indemnification provisions will not apply to the calculation of remedies and attorneys’ fees that may be awarded in this case.

The judge declined to issue an injunction blocking Swift from engaging in future contact with putative class members regarding matters in this suit, as the plaintiffs had requested, saying it was “unnecessarily restrictive,” according to the order.

Swift is now hoping for the Ninth Circuit to back its push for the dispute, which dates back to 2009, to be heard in arbitration. Swift is the largest truckload motor carrier in North America with more than 45 terminals in the U.S. and Mexico. It has maintained that its drivers are properly classified as independent contractors, and their contractor agreements contained a clear provision that any disputes over the agreements would be taken up in arbitration.

The district court had previously granted the company’s arbitration request in 2010, prompting the drivers to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. That earlier appeal resulted in a split decision last year, with the panel sending the dispute back down to the district court to have it first figure out whether the drivers’ contractor agreements constituted contracts of employment before deciding whether the fight was even exempted from arbitration under the FAA.

Counsel or representatives for the parties were not immediately available for comment on Monday.

The plaintiffs are represented by Dan Getman of Getman & Sweeney PLLC, attorney Edward Tuddenham, and Susan Martin, Daniel Bonnett and Jennifer Kroll of Martin & Bonnett PLLC.

Swift Transportation and the other defendants are represented by Paul S. Cowie, Kevin M. Cloutier, Robert Mussig and Anna M. Stancu of Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP.

The case is Virginia Van Dusen et al v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc. et al, case number 2:10-cv-00899, in the U.S. District Court of Arizona.