The EEOC sued Pharr, Texas-based Trancasa USA Inc. on Sept. 24, alleging the cross-border carrier refused to hire a 64-year-old driver with more than 20 years of experience and a clean record because its insurance policy capped driver eligibility at age 65.

The suit, 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 protects workers aged 40 and older. The agency is seeking back pay, prejudgment interest, front pay and liquidated damages for the affected driver, Gilbert Cerda, and other applicants, plus a permanent injunction forcing changes to hiring policy.

Trancasa operates 171 power units with 198 drivers and logged roughly 18.8 million miles in 2025, according to FMCSA data. Its website advertises a broader operation spanning the U.S., Mexico and Canada with more than 400 transport units and 1,000 semi-trailers.

What do the insurance standards require?

The complaint centers on eligibility standards attached to a commercial liability insurance policy Trancasa purchased in 2023. The alleged rules:

• Drivers had to be at least 23 and no older than 65.
• Drivers younger than 25 or older than 60 with any traffic violations or accidents in the previous three years were ineligible.
• Drivers aged 63 to 65 had to submit a long-form medical examination report, Form MCSA-5875.

The EEOC states that federal law does not require trucking companies to obtain the long-form medical report, and Trancasa did not routinely impose it on younger drivers.

The case carries a blunt warning for carriers and their insurers alike. "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.

"Such agreements and their implementation are illegal, and both parties to the contract place themselves at considerable risk of potential litigation and liability," Phillips said in a statement.

How was Gilbert Cerda rejected?

Cerda applied for a driving position in November 2023 and met with a Trancasa recruiter, according to the complaint. The recruiter told him his application needed review by the insurance carrier because he was approaching the policy's maximum eligible age.

Several weeks later, Cerda returned to the Pharr facility to check on his application. The recruiter informed him the insurance provider had determined he could not be hired because of his age. The EEOC alleges Trancasa rejected him around Nov. 27, 2023, despite his qualifications and driving history.

Cerda was not alone. Since at least June 2023, the company allegedly refused to hire multiple applicants over age 60 under the same standards.

Which insurer set the rules?

The complaint does not identify the insurance provider behind the eligibility standards. Trancasa switched between several insurers between June 2021 and June 2024, and FMCSA filings confirm a liability insurance relationship without establishing which provider issued or enforced the age-based requirements.

Trancasa and several of its previous insurers had not responded to requests for comment by publication time.

What happens next?

The EEOC issued a reasonable-cause determination in March and attempted administrative conciliation before suing. The agency alleges the violations were willful, which can expose carriers to liquidated damages under the ADEA. The allegations remain unadjudicated and no 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.

For motor carriers, the suit signals that insurance-driven underwriting criteria — age bands, record screens and medical documentation demands — offer no legal shield when they function as de facto hiring bars for drivers over 40. With insurers tightening risk standards across trucking since 2023, fleets that outsource eligibility decisions to policy fine print now face litigation risk on both sides of the contract, and the outcome here could shape how carriers document age-neutral hiring standards going forward.