Forward Air Corporation is facing a class action suit filed in Los Angeles County, alleging multiple labor law violations, including failure to pay minimum wages, failure to reimburse business expenses, and use of an improper compensation plan for its truck drivers. According to the complaint[i], Forward Air paid its drivers on a mileage-rate basis, not accounting for non-driving and other time which the class members allege is required compensable time under California law.

Plaintiff Tiga S. Stevenson, and all others similarly situated, applied online, were hired, and required to attend mandatory training. After that, plaintiffs had to “clock in and out”, were “assigned specific routes and schedules”, and waited for “electronically dispatched loads.”[ii] Plaintiffs claim “[p]laintiff had little to no discretion regarding the manner or order in which work was performed and was not permitted to select or decline routes[.]”[iii] “The trucks…displayed [d]efendants’ names and…signage.”[iv] Despite this level of control, defendant paid plaintiffs strictly “on a per-mile basis”, which allegedly “fails to compensate for non-driving time in violation of the California Labor Code.”[v] Plaintiffs also allege they “were required to perform non-driving…duties”—such as pre- and post-trip inspections, “waiting time, and other on-duty time”—without proper compensation.[vi] As a result, they claim “defendant failed to pay…for all hours worked.[vii]”

Likely Outcome While Litigation Is Ongoing

While we cannot be certain, at this stage, the most likely outcome is not a trial, but a negotiated resolution. Cases like this—particularly wage-and-hour class actions in California—almost always turn on a few key issues: control, compensation structure, and whether employees were paid for all hours worked.

First, the level of control matters. Plaintiffs are alleging they were assigned routes, required to follow schedules, and had no ability to accept or reject work. If supported, those facts weigh in favor of employee status and undermine any argument that drivers operated independently.

Second, the mileage-based compensation model presents risk. California law requires payment for all hours worked, not just productive or driving time. If drivers were paid per mile, and not separately compensated for waiting time, inspections, or other on-duty tasks, that creates a clear exposure point. The issue is not just how they were paid, but whether that pay structure captures all compensable time.

The procedural turning point in this case will likely be class certification. Reviewing courts consistently look to the allegations of the complaint and the declarations of attorneys representing the plaintiff class to resolve this question.[viii] If the court finds that these policies were applied uniformly across drivers, certification is likely, which significantly increases the pressure on defendant to resolve the case. If certification is denied, the value of the case drops and it may proceed, if at all, on an individual basis.

Assuming certification is granted and there is some evidence of uncompensated non-driving time, the most probable outcome is a class-wide settlement, often reached at mediation or shortly thereafter. The value of any resolution will depend on the size of the class, the duration of the alleged violations, and the availability (or lack) of reliable time records. A full defense verdict or trial remains possible but is far less likely given the cost and risk associated with litigating class actions of this nature.

Key Takeaways for Carriers and Defense Counsel

From a defense and carrier standpoint, cases like this are about controlling exposure early, not winning at trial. Wage-and-hour class actions in California get expensive fast, especially if a class gets certified.

First, the pay structure is what matters. Employers can call someone whatever they want, but if they are being paid in a way that does not cover all hours worked, that is where the problem lies. Mileage-based pay can be an issue if it does not account for things like waiting time, inspections, or other on-duty work.

Second, uniform policies are what drive these cases. If everyone is being paid the same way and doing the job the same way, it makes it much easier for plaintiffs to get a class certified. On the defense side, anything that shows differences between drivers—routes, schedules, how they are managed—can help push back on that.

Third, document, document, document. Records can make or break the case. If there is no good way to track non-driving time, that usually works against the defense. Plaintiffs will fill in the gaps, and that tends to increase the value of the case.

Fourth, the real fight is at class certification. That is where the case either becomes a big problem or stays manageable. Once a class is certified, the pressure to settle goes way up.

Finally, early resolution is usually worth considering. These cases are expensive to litigate, and fees add up quickly. Even if liability is not clear, the cost of getting through certification alone can be high. Sometimes it makes more sense to resolve it early rather than spend more fighting it. Bottom line: Look at the pay structure, look at the policies, and look at the records early. Those items will drive exposure and determine the case resolution.

Keep Reading

From Sci-Fi to Humanity: Lawyers Who Inspired Me When the Bugs Hitchhike: Using Entomology to Defeat Bed Bug Habitability Claims How I Became A Lawyer: A Story of An Absence to Inspiration Legal Jiu-Jitsu: The Gentle Art of Practicing Law Florida’s HB 167 & Phosphate Mining Litigation Early Case-Handling Strategies for Adjusters to Prevent Nuclear Verdicts® Beyond Competence: The 4 Cs of Exceptional Client Service Private Thoughts, Public Evidence: AI Chat Conversations and the Next Wave of Discovery From Classroom to Courtroom: My Personal Journey to Becoming an Attorney

More by this author

Driving Up Damages: Potential Class Action in California Setting Goals & Holding Ourselves Accountable Slay the Serpent: How To Combat the Reptile Theory in Deposition! Angry Jury, Expensive Result: California Custodian’s Wrongful Termination Leads to $35 M Nuclear Verdict®

Sources

[i] Compl., Stevenson v. Forward Air Corporation et al., 26STCV04880 (Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles), February 17, 2026, https://assets.law360news.com/2443000/2443395/stevenson%20v.%20forward%20air%20corp.%20et%20al.pdf.

[ii] Compl. at 4, Stevenson v. Forward Air Corporation et al., STCV04880 (Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles), February 17, 2026.

[iii] Id.

[iv] Id.

[v] Id. at 5.

[vi] Id.

[vii] Id.

[viii]Richmond v. Dart Industries, Inc. (1981) 29 Cal.3d 462, 478, 174 Cal.Rptr. 515, 629 P.2d 23; see Lockheed, supra, at p. 1106, 131 Cal.Rptr.2d 1, 63 P.3d 913.)