Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC
48 distinct federal cases coded as employment matters from public court records (1999–2025)
7 trusted published court opinions analyzed; 6 map to 6 distinct cases · 2 docket-only cases without a recorded end date
What public court records show
In public federal court records, Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC is named as a party in 48 federal cases coded as employment matters between 1999 and 2025.
Of the 6 trusted published opinions analyzed, the most common outcomes were: 2 had a mixed result, 1 ended in a ruling for the worker, 1 ended in a ruling for the employer, and 1 settled.
1 further opinion is listed below but left out of these outcome figures, because the employer brought the case or was not a party to it.
The most common claims on record were Wage Theft, Discrimination, and Wrongful Termination.
Cases were filed across 6 states, most often in GA.
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.
Written decisions across 6 distinct cases.
Jurisdictions represented in the analyzed opinions.
About this employer
Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC appears in 7 trusted published federal employment opinions. Recent written decisions on record:
Carlson v. Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC (2024) — Mixed Result. Truck drivers working for Swift Transportation in Washington claimed the company violated wage laws by not properly paying overtime. The drivers filed a group lawsuit, asking the court to treat it as a class action so many workers could pursue the case together rather than individually. Read the ruling.
Silman v. Swift Transportation Incorporated (2024) — Defendant Win. An employee named Silman sued Swift Transportation, claiming the company failed to pay him wages owed and wrongfully terminated his employment. Silman asked the court to stop the company from taking certain actions while the case proceeded. Read the ruling.
Zamora v. Swift Transportation Corp. (2008) — Plaintiff Win. This case involved a discrimination dispute between an employee, Zamora, and Swift Transportation Corporation. Swift Transportation tried to force the case into private arbitration instead of allowing it to proceed in court, based on an arbitration agreement the employee had signed. Read the ruling.
The published opinions primarily involve Wage Theft (3 of 7), Discrimination (3 of 7), Wrongful Termination (2 of 7). Browse the linked claim hubs for outcome statistics and other employers facing the same allegations. Wage Theft, Discrimination and Wrongful Termination.
Published opinions span Georgia (1), Washington (1), Arizona (1), Texas (1). Browse state-specific employment rulings for jurisdictional patterns. Georgia rulings, Washington rulings, Arizona rulings and Texas rulings.
These published opinions sit within the transportation sector, where USERRA, FMLA, and DOT safety-retaliation claims appear alongside standard discrimination claims.
Opinion Outcomes
1 listed opinion is not counted here: the employer brought the case, or was not a party to an appeal against an agency, so the recorded outcome is not a result for or against a worker.
Opinion Stages
6 analyzed opinions have a classified procedural stage.
Of the 1 summary-judgment opinions, 0 ended the case in Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC’s favor and 1 let the worker’s claims continue.
What do these stages mean?
- 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 →
Claim Types
What these numbers mean
A case is one lawsuit, identified by its court and docket number. The docket is the running court record for that same case — it is not an extra case.
A published opinion or ruling is a written court decision. One case can produce several opinions, so opinion counts and case counts answer different questions. Only trusted, reportable opinions are used in the outcome statistics on this page.
Docket entries are the individual filings inside a case — motions, orders, scheduling notices. We read them to confirm a case is real and to see where it got to, but an entry is never counted as a case or as an outcome. A single case can generate hundreds of entries.
Far fewer opinions than cases is normal. Many employment cases settle privately or close without a published opinion. No opinion here does not mean the worker lost; it means this public record does not show a reportable result.
Everything on this page comes from public federal court records. Where we are not confident a record is accurate, we leave it out rather than guess.
Federal court cases
public court recordsOne row per court+docket case · written opinions stay grouped inside their case · plaintiff names redacted
Other court records naming this party
1 published opinion names this party but is not coded with an employment claim. Some are labor, unemployment or workers’ compensation matters whose claim type was not recorded; others are not employment disputes at all. They are not counted in any figure on this page, and no outcome is shown for them.
Other employers with published opinions
Browse trusted published opinions involving other employers.
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.