Skip to main content
Transportation & Logistics

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC

51 federal employment cases from public court records (19992025)

14 with a published ruling · 37 open dockets

What public court records show

Public federal court records list Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC as an employer in 51 employment matters between 1999 and 2025.

Of the 13 matters with a recorded outcome, the most common were: 6 ended in a ruling for the employer, 2 were dismissed, 2 settled, and 1 ended in a ruling for the worker.

Workers obtained a favorable ruling in about 8% of matters with a recorded outcome.

The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Discrimination, and Retaliation.

Cases were filed across 10 states, most often in KS.

These figures summarize publicly available U.S. federal court records only. Most workplace disputes are resolved privately and never appear in litigation. A case outcome reflects many factors and is not a finding that any employer violated the law.

51
Federal Cases
8%
Plaintiff Win Rate

Does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.

10
States
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

About this employer

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC appears in 13 federal employment-law court rulings on record. These cases sit within the transportation sector, where USERRA, FMLA, and DOT safety-retaliation claims appear alongside standard discrimination claims. The set below covers rulings that produced written federal-court decisions; private settlements, EEOC charges resolved without litigation, and state-court cases are not included.

The cases primarily involve Wage Theft (5 of 13), Discrimination (4 of 13), Retaliation (2 of 13). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Discrimination and Retaliation.

Rulings span Kansas (2), Hawaii (1), Texas (1), Oregon (1). Kansas is an EEOC deferral state, which extends the federal Title VII / ADA / ADEA filing deadline from 180 to 300 days. Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Kansas rulings, Hawaii rulings, Texas rulings and Oregon rulings.

Case Outcomes

Defendant Win
6 (46%)
Dismissed
2 (15%)
Settlement
2 (15%)
Plaintiff Win
1 (8%)
Mixed Result
1 (8%)
Remanded
1 (8%)

Case Stages

The stage at which courts issued Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC’s 13 stage-identified rulings.

Appeal
4 (31%)
Summary judgment
2 (15%)

Of the 2 summary-judgment rulings, 1 ended the case in Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC’s favor and 1 let the worker’s claims continue.

Motion to dismiss
5 (38%)
Settlement / consent decree
2 (15%)
What do these stages mean?
Appeal
A higher court reviewing an earlier decision. Many published opinions come from this stage, after a lot has already happened in the case.
Summary judgment
A ruling where the judge decides the case — or part of it — without a trial, because one side argues the key facts are not in dispute. For workers, getting past this step is often the biggest hurdle.
Motion to dismiss
An early request — usually by the employer — to throw the case out before any evidence is gathered.
Settlement / consent decree
The two sides resolved the dispute by agreement, sometimes with court approval. Most settlements are private and never show up in published opinions.

Published federal-court opinions only — most workplace disputes are resolved privately. This is not anyone’s odds, and not a finding that any employer violated the law.

Facing something similar? Check your rights →

Federal cases

public court records

One row per case · a badge means the case reached a published ruling · plaintiff names redacted

Employee v. Swift Transportation Co of Arizona LLC
C.D. Ill. · Dec 2025
Open docket
Employee v. Luz Elvia Castillo
C.D. Cal. · Jul 2025 · California · Hostile Work Environment
Remanded
Employee v. SWIFT TRANSPORTATION
M.D. Ga. · Dec 2024 · Georgia
Dismissed
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC.
S.D. Cal. · Nov 2024
Open docket
Employee v. Hlady
D. Minn. · Sep 2024 · Minnesota · Negligence
Defendant Win
Employee v. Union Pacific Railroad Co.
W.D. Tex. · Aug 2024 · Nevada · Failure to Accommodate
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Company
C.D. Cal. · Oct 2021
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
C.D. Cal. · Aug 2021
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
N.D. Ga. · Dec 2020
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, L.L.C.
C.D. Cal. · Mar 2020
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, L.L.C.
C.D. Cal. · Jan 2020
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Incorporated
D. Ariz. · Dec 2019 · Arizona · Wage Theft
Settlement
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
C.D. Cal. · Nov 2019
Open docket
Employee v. Knight Transportation, Inc.
D. Or. · Aug 2019
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co of Arizona, LLC
C.D. Cal. · Jul 2019
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co of Arizona LLC
W.D. Wash. · Apr 2019
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.
C.D. Cal. · Apr 2019
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co., Inc.
N.D. Cal. · Nov 2018
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona
D. Utah · Jul 2018
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
C.D. Cal. · Apr 2018
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
C.D. Cal. · Oct 2017
Open docket
Employee v. Knight Transportation, Inc.
N.D. Ga. · Aug 2017
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co of Arizona LLC
N.D. Tex. · Jul 2017
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
M.D. Fla. · Jun 2017
Open docket
Employee v. Swift Transportation Co of Arizona LLC
D.S.C. · Jun 2017
Open docket
Showing 25 of 51

Understand your employment rights

Free, private, no sign-up required.

Check My Rights

Data sourced from public federal court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes extracted using AI analysis. This information is for educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The presence of an employer on this page does not imply wrongdoing — many cases are dismissed or resolved without findings of liability.