100+ Trucking Jobs Blocked: Kroger and 3 Carriers Face Antitrust Lawsuit Over No-Hire Agreements

More than 100 truck drivers may have been locked out of jobs they were qualified for, not because of their skills, experience, or safety records, but because of where they used to work. A new class action lawsuit filed in April 2026 alleges that grocery giant Kroger colluded with three major trucking carriers to block former Quickway Transportation drivers from being hired. The case shines a spotlight on no-hire agreements, a practice the federal government has increasingly targeted as an illegal restraint on workers' freedom to seek employment. Metaintro breaks down what happened, who is affected, and what it means for workers across industries.

What Are the Allegations Against Kroger and the Carriers?

The lawsuit, filed by three former Quickway drivers named Dan Cheatham, Brian Kuhn, and Eric Cabler, accuses Kroger of directing Werner Enterprises (NASDAQ: WERN), Swift Transportation (NYSE: KNX), and U.S. Xpress not to hire, recruit, solicit, or employ any former Quickway drivers. The plaintiffs claim this amounted to a "gentlemen's agreement" that left more than 100 experienced, commercially licensed drivers unable to find work with the very companies that were taking over the routes they had been running.

According to the complaint reported by HR Dive, Kroger had been one of Quickway's largest customers, with nine terminals servicing Kroger directly. When Quickway filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in January 2026 and later converted to Chapter 7 liquidation in February, Kroger moved to replace those transportation services by entering into new dedicated carrier agreements with Werner, Swift, and U.S. Xpress. But the lawsuit alleges that rather than allowing the experienced drivers to transition to these new carriers, Kroger actively intervened to prevent it.

The suit further alleges that Kroger "impermissibly sought, directly and indirectly, to suppress wages and benefits as part of its anti-union strategy and through its no-hire agreements." The plaintiffs seek class-action status, damages, and a court order to stop the alleged anti-competitive collusion.

Why Does the Lawsuit Claim This Was Anti-Union?

The union dimension is central to the case. Many of the former Quickway drivers were represented by local Teamsters unions. According to the FreightWaves report on the lawsuit, the core of the drivers' argument is that Kroger instructed the carriers not to hire former Quickway workers precisely because those workers were unionized.

The timeline adds context to this claim. After Quickway closed in early March 2026, Kroger labor representatives reportedly engaged in conversations with Teamsters officials to supposedly find a solution to retain the unionized drivers. But at the same time, Kroger was signing new contracts with Werner, Swift, and U.S. Xpress. The plaintiffs argue these parallel tracks reveal a deliberate strategy: appear to negotiate in good faith with the union while quietly ensuring the replacement carriers would not bring on unionized workers.

If the allegations hold up in court, this would represent a significant case of using corporate supply chain relationships to undermine organized labor. Rather than directly opposing a union drive, the complaint suggests Kroger used its leverage as a major customer to influence the hiring decisions of its transportation partners, effectively creating an anti-union firewall without ever having to face a formal labor dispute.

How Do No-Hire Agreements Violate Antitrust Law?

No-hire agreements, sometimes called no-poach agreements, have been under intensifying federal scrutiny for years. In January 2025, the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission issued updated "Antitrust Guidelines for Business Activities Affecting Workers," which replaced and expanded upon earlier 2016 guidance.

Under these guidelines, agreements between companies not to recruit, solicit, or hire each other's workers are treated as potentially per se illegal under antitrust law. This means they can be prosecuted criminally, not just as civil violations. The guidelines make clear that a no-poach agreement does not need to completely prohibit hiring to break the law. Any agreement that restricts a company's ability to hire another company's workers, including requirements to get permission from the current employer before extending an offer, may constitute an unlawful restraint.

The DOJ has pursued criminal prosecutions in this area. The federal case U.S. v. Lopez resulted in the conviction of a business executive for involvement in a wage-fixing conspiracy, signaling the government's willingness to bring criminal charges against individuals, not just corporations. While the DOJ has faced setbacks in some criminal no-poach trials, federal and state enforcers continue to treat these agreements as serious violations.

For the Kroger case specifically, the alleged instruction from a customer (Kroger) to its vendors (the trucking carriers) not to hire a specific group of workers would fall squarely within the type of conduct the FTC and DOJ have flagged as illegal. The vertical nature of the relationship, with Kroger as a customer rather than a direct competitor, does not provide immunity. The updated guidelines explicitly address scenarios where businesses with vertical relationships, such as franchisors and franchisees, engage in no-poach conduct.

What Does This Mean for the 100+ Affected Drivers?

The human cost of these alleged agreements is significant. The trucking industry is already grappling with a persistent driver shortage. The American Trucking Associations estimates the industry is short approximately 64,000 drivers in 2026, with roughly 237,600 job openings projected annually through 2034 as experienced drivers retire faster than new entrants replace them.

Truck driving jobs currently pay an average salary of approximately $69,700 per year, according to industry data, with many carriers offering sign-on bonuses, tuition reimbursement, and enhanced benefits to attract qualified candidates. Drivers with clean safety records, hazmat endorsements, and two or more years of experience are in the strongest bargaining position in decades.

Against this backdrop, more than 100 experienced, commercially licensed drivers who had been running Kroger routes for years allegedly found themselves unable to get hired by the very companies taking over those same routes. These were not entry-level applicants. They were skilled professionals with established track records, CDL certifications, and route-specific knowledge. The lawsuit alleges that the only thing disqualifying them was their former employer's identity and their union membership.

If the class action succeeds, the affected drivers could be entitled to damages that reflect the wages and benefits they lost during the period they were locked out of employment. Given the current driver market, those losses could be substantial for each individual.

As Metaintro CEO Lacey Kaelani told People Managing People, "What we're seeing isn't just a correction, it's a restructuring. Companies are using AI as both a tool and an excuse to fundamentally reshape their workforces." While the Kroger case involves traditional logistics rather than technology, the underlying dynamic is similar: companies leveraging their market position to reshape the labor pool in ways that reduce worker power and suppress compensation.

How Does This Case Fit Into the Broader Labor Rights Landscape?

The Kroger trucking lawsuit arrives at a moment when workers' rights in the hiring process are receiving unprecedented attention. The FTC has been actively challenging noncompete agreements, no-poach deals, and other practices that restrict worker mobility. Multiple states have passed or strengthened laws targeting anti-competitive employment practices.

This case is particularly notable because it involves a major publicly traded company (Kroger, which reported over $150 billion in annual revenue) allegedly using its purchasing power to dictate who its vendors can and cannot hire. If courts find this conduct illegal, it could set a precedent with implications far beyond trucking. Any large company that uses dedicated contract carriers, staffing agencies, or outsourced service providers could face similar scrutiny if they attempt to influence those partners' hiring decisions.

The case also intersects with growing tensions around union organizing in logistics and warehousing. Amazon, UPS, and other major employers have faced scrutiny over their labor practices in recent years. A ruling that prevents companies from using vendor relationships to circumvent workers' rights to organize and seek employment could strengthen protections across the supply chain economy.

For job seekers in trucking and logistics, the case underscores an important reality: the barriers to employment are not always visible. A clean driving record and proper certifications should be enough to compete for open positions. When companies secretly agree not to hire specific workers, it removes the ability to compete on merit, which is exactly what antitrust law is designed to prevent.

What Should Workers Do If They Suspect a No-Hire Agreement?

Workers who believe they have been affected by a no-hire or no-poach agreement should be aware of their options. The DOJ Antitrust Division encourages workers to report suspected no-poach agreements, and workers can file complaints directly. State attorneys general in many jurisdictions have also taken action against these practices, and some states have dedicated enforcement units focused on labor market competition.

Signs that a no-hire agreement may be in effect include: receiving rejections from multiple companies that are hiring for roles you are qualified for, learning through industry contacts that a former employer or client has discouraged new employers from hiring you, or noticing that former colleagues from the same company are experiencing similar difficulties finding work despite a strong job market.

Workers may also want to consult with an employment attorney who has experience with antitrust claims. These cases can result in significant damages, and many attorneys take them on a contingency basis, meaning the worker does not pay legal fees unless the case succeeds.

People Also Asked

Q: Are no-hire agreements between companies illegal?

A: The DOJ and FTC treat "naked" no-hire and no-poach agreements between companies as potentially per se illegal under antitrust law, meaning they can lead to criminal prosecution. Any agreement that restricts one company's ability to hire another company's workers, even if it does not completely ban hiring, may violate federal antitrust statutes. The 2025 updated guidelines expanded enforcement to include vertical relationships like customer-vendor arrangements.

Q: How many truck drivers does the U.S. need right now?

A: The American Trucking Associations estimates the industry is short approximately 64,000 drivers in 2026. About 237,600 truck driving job openings are projected annually through 2034, driven largely by retirements and workers leaving the industry. The average truck driver in the U.S. is approaching 50 years old, making the shortage a long-term structural challenge.

Q: What should I do if a former employer is blocking me from getting hired?

A: You can report suspected no-hire or no-poach agreements to the DOJ Antitrust Division or your state attorney general's office. Document any rejections from companies you are qualified for, keep records of communications, and note if former colleagues are experiencing similar hiring difficulties. Consider consulting an employment attorney experienced in antitrust claims, as these cases can result in significant damages and are often taken on a contingency fee basis.

Know your rights in the job market. Whether you are a truck driver, a tech worker, or anyone in between, your ability to seek employment freely is protected by federal law. Stay informed about the policies and practices shaping the labor market by joining Metaintro. Sign up today for daily job market insights delivered straight to your inbox.