ALBUQUERQUE (LN) — A federal judge has temporarily barred TransWood Logistics and its affiliates from retaliating against current and former truck drivers who are suing the company for unpaid wages, after a driver claimed he was fired the day after the company filed its court response and a general manager allegedly told another driver that rehiring was conditioned on withdrawing.
The case centers on a class of crude-oil haulers in New Mexico who allege TransWood failed to pay them for time spent on various tasks, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act. U.S. District Judge Sarah M. Davenport certified a Rule 23 class for the state law claims in February, and class members received notice in early April.
Within weeks of that notice, two drivers came forward with accounts of alleged retaliation by TransWood General Manager Chris Perez. Zachary Wier, a former TransWood driver who sought to return, stated in a declaration that Perez told him that "as a precondition [he] would have to drop out of the case against TransWood and withdraw [his] wage claims." Perez denied making that statement.
The more urgent account came from Javier Martinez, who stated in a declaration that he has driven for TransWood for the past year and a half. Martinez stated that Perez terminated him on April 29 — one day after TransWood filed its response to the TRO motion — without providing a clear reason, while allegedly complaining that the lawsuit was creating "many problems" and "questioned why [the drivers] are suing them if they are doing things correctly." Martinez further stated that Perez told him five drivers who wanted to return to work would not be rehired because they did not give two weeks' notice and because they are part of the lawsuit.
Davenport held that Martinez's declaration tipped the scales in the plaintiffs' favor. The timing of his termination, combined with Perez's alleged remarks about the litigation, was sufficient to establish a prima facie retaliation claim under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. TransWood's response — a flat denial from Perez — failed to satisfy the employer's burden under that framework, the court held, because denying retaliatory motive is not the same as offering a legitimate non-retaliatory reason for the adverse action.
The court also rejected TransWood's argument that employees' reluctance to submit declarations undermined the retaliation claim. "Employees' reticence to provide declarations does not undermine a retaliation claim," Davenport wrote. "If anything, it supports it."
On irreparable harm, Davenport held that intimidating workers into withdrawing would deprive them of their statutory rights and impede the class from obtaining evidence — injuries that money damages after trial could not repair. The balance of hardships, she added, weighed in the plaintiffs' favor because the order merely prohibits conduct the FLSA already forbids. Quoting a Nevada federal district court, Davenport wrote that defendants have "no legitimate interest in threatening, intimidating, or otherwise retaliating against Plaintiffs in direct contravention of their rights under the FLSA."
Davenport reserved ruling on the plaintiffs' broader requests — including allowing a class representative to read an anti-retaliation statement aloud to employees during paid work hours, requiring workplace postings, and compelling TransWood to produce a list of employees who communicated with class members — until after a preliminary injunction hearing.
The TRO expires in 14 days. The parties are scheduled to appear before Davenport on May 18 to argue whether a preliminary injunction should issue.