A recent legal filing claims that delivery drivers for a logistics company were not paid overtime wages despite working long hours, raising questions about employment practices in the package delivery industry. The complaint was filed by Alejandro Arteaga on March 13, 2026, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas against Ontrack Logistics LLC.
According to the court documents, Arteaga brings this action on behalf of himself and other current and former delivery drivers who worked for Ontrack Logistics. The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding unpaid overtime wages. Arteaga states that he and other drivers regularly worked more than forty hours per week but did not receive time-and-a-half pay as required by federal law.
The complaint outlines that Arteaga worked for Ontrack Logistics from October 2025 through February 9, 2026, delivering packages in Austin, Texas. During his employment, he claims to have consistently worked beyond forty hours per week—sometimes up to seventy hours during busy seasons—without receiving overtime compensation. Instead of being paid overtime rates, Arteaga alleges that he and other drivers were compensated on a piece-rate basis without regard to the number of hours worked.
The document further asserts that Ontrack Logistics classified its drivers as independent contractors rather than employees. However, Arteaga contends that his job duties and working conditions matched those of an employee: following strict schedules set by the company, using assigned routes, adhering to operational instructions from management, and relying on company-provided tools such as scanning applications and software. “Arteaga was misclassified as an independent contractor, yet performed duties consistent with an employee,” the complaint states.
Arteaga also claims that he was not provided with pay stubs or accurate statements of hours worked. The filing describes instances where drivers were allegedly required to manipulate time records on their phones so deliveries would appear completed before 9:00 p.m., even though work often continued until late at night.
The suit alleges these practices extended beyond Arteaga to a broader group of workers referred to as “OnTrac Drivers.” It defines this group as all current and former delivery drivers employed by or working on behalf of Ontrack Logistics within the past three years. According to Arteaga’s account and conversations with other drivers cited in the filing, these workers experienced similar conditions: being paid per delivery without overtime compensation while performing essential tasks under close supervision from Ontrack management.
Legal arguments presented in the complaint emphasize that Ontrack’s pay practices violate sections 206 and 207(a) of the FLSA by failing to provide minimum wage and required overtime premiums. The document asserts these violations were not accidental but part of a “pattern or practice” carried out willfully by Ontrack Logistics: “Defendant engaged in a pattern or practice of willfully failing to comply with their wage obligations under the FLSA.” It further notes that any differences among job titles or specific duties do not change the fact that all affected employees were denied lawful overtime wages due to centralized company policies.
Arteaga is seeking several forms of relief from the court: an order finding Ontrack liable for unpaid overtime wages under federal law; liquidated damages equal to any unpaid compensation; reasonable attorneys’ fees; costs incurred during litigation; pre- and post-judgment interest; and any additional relief deemed just by the court.
The lawsuit requests certification as a collective action so similarly situated employees can be notified about their rights and given an opportunity to join the case. The filing argues this approach is necessary because many affected workers may otherwise remain unaware or unable to pursue legal action individually due to financial constraints.
Plaintiff Alejandro Arteaga is represented by attorney Carl A. Fitz of Fitz Law PLLC in Houston, Texas. The case is identified as Case No. 4:26-cv-2070.
Source: 426cv2070_Alejandro_Arteaga_v_Ontrack_Logistics_Complaint_Southern_District_of_Texas.pdf
