The agency points to a signed form it says applied to female drivers alone
Federal regulators are suing a national trucking company over training rules that, they say, left female drivers unpaid, waiting longer, and warning a spouse first.
The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued KLLM Transport Services LLC and its subsidiary, KLLM Driving Academy, Inc., on August 5, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The agency alleges the companies ran a driver-training program that treated female student drivers worse than men in three specific ways.
The dispute turns on what the industry calls on-the-road training - the period, which the complaint says took roughly six weeks, when a new hire rides with an experienced trainer before driving solo. Before it begins, according to the complaint, drivers fill out a form saying whether they want a male or female trainer, and whether they have any preference at all.
That form is at the heart of the case. The EEOC alleges it told women they would go unpaid while waiting for a female trainer: "Female Students who elect to wait for a Female Trainer will not be compensated while they wait, if a Male Trainer is available." Men who preferred a male trainer, the agency alleges, were paid during the same kind of wait.
The form carried a second condition aimed only at women, according to the filing. The complaint alleges women who were willing to train with a man, or who stated no trainer preference, had to sign a line reading: "I certify that I have notified my Spouse and/or significant other that I have volunteered to complete my training with a Trainer of the opposite sex." Male drivers, the filing alleges, faced no comparable requirement.
There was a third layer, the EEOC alleges. Male trainers were allowed to turn down female trainees, and the company adopted those preferences without asking for a reason. Because most trainers were men, the agency alleges, fewer were available to women, so female drivers waited longer to start earning their full rate.
The complaint points to two women to illustrate the claims. It alleges one driver, who stated no trainer preference, spent a month on a waiting list before being offered a trainer in Atlanta, Georgia - more than 700 miles from where she lived and trained in Texas. When she asked why she was waiting, a student services representative allegedly texted: "[N]ot all males can train females. We have 22 females waiting for [a] trainer right now." Asked why men would not train women, the representative allegedly replied, "They can, some just choose not to." A second trainee, the filing alleges, was told her husband - who was also a KLLM student driver - had to consent before she could be paired with a male trainer.
For HR professionals, the value is in the theory. The EEOC is not pointing at one manager; it is challenging the design of the policies themselves. On the agency's account, two workers make the same request - wait for a same-sex trainer - and the outcome differs by sex: one is paid, one is not. Only women, the complaint alleges, had to loop in a spouse. That is the kind of written-down rule that can turn an operational preference into a discrimination claim.
It is also a pattern-or-practice case - a term the EEOC uses for alleged company-wide conduct - brought for a class of female applicants and employees, which raises the stakes beyond a single payout. For HR teams reviewing their own onboarding, training, and accommodation forms, the complaint reads as a checklist: does any policy treat an identical request differently by sex, and is that difference written into something a worker has to sign?
The timeline is worth noting too. The complaint states the EEOC issued reasonable-cause findings in February 2025, was unable to reach a conciliation agreement, and filed suit in August 2026. A charge that looks dormant can still become federal litigation years later.
The allegations have not been tested, and no court has ruled.
