45 Mexican truck drivers accuse US recruiter, carriers of forced-labor scheme

Karla Madrazo Villarreal, attorney for the plaintiffs, told FreightWaves that her firm now represents at least 45 Mexican commercial drivers reporting “substantially similar experiences” connected with the alleged recruitment and staffing arrangement.

The original lawsuit involved 22 drivers, with seven more added in the amended complaint.

“Additional drivers have come forward since the First Amended Complaint was filed,” Madrazo Villarreal said in a written response to FreightWaves. “Our firm currently represents at least 45 Mexican commercial drivers who report substantially similar experiences arising from the alleged recruitment and staffing arrangement.”

The 29 current plaintiffs are included in that figure. Madrazo Villarreal said the investigation is continuing and the total number of potentially affected drivers could be higher. Her firm anticipates asking the court to add plaintiffs and potentially additional defendants if its investigation produces sufficient evidence.

Drivers allege promises of visas and legal US employment

According to the amended complaint, Omega and recruiters acting on its behalf targeted professional commercial drivers in Mexico from approximately 2022 through 2025 with promises of lawful U.S. work authorization, employment-based visas and, in some instances, eventual permanent residency.

The plaintiffs allege recruiters communicated through WhatsApp messages and voice recordings, meetings in Baja California and San Diego County, and written materials.

The complaint alleges drivers were given purported immigration “case numbers” and misleading information about Individual taxpayer identification numbers that made them believe legitimate immigration sponsorship was underway. Drivers allegedly paid “activation” and “visa processing” fees before being placed with U.S. carriers.

Madrazo Villarreal said the alleged immigration promises were central to recruiting the drivers.

According to the complaint, “the drivers were told that they would be able to work lawfully in the United States and that Omega would arrange or facilitate the necessary immigration process,” she told FreightWaves.

The alleged representations included employment-based immigration processing, work permits and, in some cases, permanent residency, she said. Plaintiffs contend their subsequent economic and immigration dependence was then used as leverage to keep them working.

One allegation provides a particularly detailed example.

The amended complaint claims that in early 2023, Henry Gamino sent WhatsApp voice messages to a driver saying Omega had secured an EB-3 immigration “case number” for him and that the driver could obtain a work permit and residency after paying a $3,000 “activation” fee.

The complaint alleges the driver was told that if he refused freight loads or left the program, he would “lose everything” and be reported to immigration authorities. The driver allegedly paid the fee, surrendered his passport and began hauling loads for one of the carrier defendants.

Those allegations have not been proven in court.

Passports, deductions and threats alleged

The plaintiffs allege drivers subsequently faced deductions characterized as payments for legal advice, taxes, insurance, truck maintenance, penalties and fuel.

The complaint also alleges some drivers surrendered passports and I-94 immigration documents that were retained, while drivers who questioned the immigration process, requested their documents or attempted to leave allegedly faced threats involving deportation, financial penalties and blacklisting.

Plaintiffs contend the arrangement amounted to forced labor and trafficking under the federal Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. They also assert claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Fair Labor Standards Act, along with California labor and other state laws.

The complaint alleges drivers hauled freight across multiple states and accuses the defendants of failing to properly compensate some drivers for all hours worked, imposing unlawful deductions and misclassifying some as independent contractors.

It also alleges U.S. Customs and Border Protection canceled or revoked visas and, in some instances, FAST cards belonging to plaintiffs during inspections at U.S. ports of entry. 

The complaint links those consequences to the alleged recruitment and dispatch operation; that claimed causal connection is an allegation by the plaintiffs, not a finding by CBP or the court.

Motor carriers dispute allegations

Madrazo Villarreal said the plaintiffs aren’t alleging every trucking company performed every alleged act.

Instead, plaintiffs contend there was a “divided but coordinated arrangement” in which different parties allegedly handled recruiting, immigration representations, onboarding, payroll, dispatch, supervision and operational control.

“This case is not based on the proposition that every carrier performed every act,” Madrazo Villarreal said. “The central questions are what each defendant did, what each knew or should have known, and whether each knowingly benefited from the drivers’ labor.”

Madrazo Villarreal said plaintiffs point to carrier-specific evidence and alleged warning signs that include offer letters, onboarding communications, dispatch and load assignments, ELD integration, payroll or settlement records, mileage and fuel records, training, and communications concerning visas, ITINs or purported work authorization.

The carriers dispute liability, she said.

At least some defendants have formally challenged the claims. Trius Trucking and B&B Transport filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint, while Diesel Direct and Diesel Direct West also filed dismissal motions. The court took dismissal motions under submission earlier this year, according to the federal docket.

A&I Transport, in its answer, acknowledged using drivers provided by Omega but denied knowingly receiving labor from plaintiffs who lacked lawful U.S. work authorization. The carrier also denied allegations that its relationship with Omega constituted an enterprise designed to obtain controlled labor through fraud, coercion and wage suppression.

South Star turns to Omega in crossclaim

South Star Logistics has taken another approach.

While denying that it engaged in trafficking, forced labor, immigration fraud, wage theft or other unlawful conduct, South Star filed a crossclaim against Omega, Henry Gamino and Rick Gamino on Feb. 11.

South Star said it had a written agreement with Omega covering recruitment, compliance and workforce services for drivers referred to the carrier.

Under that agreement, according to South Star’s crossclaim, Omega was responsible for recruiting, screening, interviewing, hiring and assigning employees; supplying background checks and drug-test results; providing qualified personnel; and complying with federal and state employment laws, including the Immigration Reform and Control Act.

Omega was also responsible for paying the workers’ wages, withholding and transmitting payroll taxes and providing unemployment insurance and workers’ compensation, South Star alleges.

South Star said it “reasonably relied” on Omega’s contractual promises and compliance representations.

The carrier argues that if it is ultimately found liable to the drivers, its responsibility would be secondary or derivative and that conduct by Omega and the Gaminos would constitute the primary cause of the plaintiffs’ alleged injuries. South Star is seeking contractual and equitable indemnification, contribution, attorneys’ fees and defense costs.

South Star’s assertions against Omega and the Gaminos are themselves allegations in a crossclaim and have not been adjudicated.

FreightWaves contacted attorneys representing South Star seeking additional information about the company’s relationship with Omega, what South Star was told about the drivers’ authorization to work in the U.S. and why it filed the crossclaim. They had not responded as of publication.

Omega has not responded to FreightWaves

FreightWaves also contacted Omega Compliance Solutions and Henry Gamino seeking responses to the drivers’ allegations and questions about Omega’s recruitment and immigration-related services.

No response had been received as of publication.

Omega’s website describes the company as providing businesses with regulatory compliance services, including audits, training and policy development.

The plaintiffs have also encountered difficulty serving their claims on Omega and the Gaminos. Madrazo Villarreal said attempts have been made at business and residential addresses, and the plaintiffs previously asked the court to authorize alternative service. 

The court denied an earlier request for alternative and electronic service in February.

South Star separately reported serving Omega and the Gaminos with its crossclaim. Madrazo Villarreal emphasized that service of South Star’s crossclaim is legally distinct from service of the drivers’ amended complaint, and she said the plaintiffs’ service efforts remain ongoing.

“These were professional commercial drivers recruited in Mexico with alleged promises of lawful employment and a better future,” Madrazo Villarreal said. “At least 45 drivers now represented by our firm report substantially similar experiences.”

The federal docket identifies the case as 3:25-cv-03613-JES-JLB.

Why it matters: The  lawsuit, Doe v. Omega Compliance Solutions LLC et al. raises questions about how U.S. fleets vet third-party staffing companies recruiting commercial drivers across the Mexican border.