Yellow’s long-running contract dispute with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters is back on the docket. On Nov. 5, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit revived the case, ruling that the lower court erred when it dismissed the complaint on procedural grounds and should have allowed Yellow to amend its filing. The decision clears a path for the bankrupt LTL carrier’s estate to re-plead claims stemming from the failed “One Yellow” restructuring and to seek monetary damages in federal court.
In its order and judgment, the 10th Circuit said Yellow’s proposed amended complaint sufficiently alleged that the union repudiated the National Master Freight Agreement’s grievance process, which, if proven, would excuse Yellow from needing to exhaust that process before suing. The panel also rejected the Teamsters’ argument that the National Labor Relations Board had primary jurisdiction over the dispute, stressing that the “heart of this case” is a Section 301 contract claim, not an unfair labor practice. The ruling is unpublished and therefore not binding precedent, but it’s persuasive authority and sends the matter back to the District of Kansas for further proceedings.
What’s at stake has grown since Yellow first sued in 2023 for $137.3 million “and counting.” Yellow’s counsel now says the estate will pursue more than $1.5 billion in damages tied to the collapse, arguing the union’s conduct precipitated the shutdown that wiped out roughly 30,000 jobs. Whether those figures will be accepted is for the trial court to sort out on remand, but the size signals how consequential the rematch could be for unsecured creditors and other stakeholders tracking recoveries out of the liquidation.
The appellate panel’s summary lays out both sides’ core narratives without choosing one. Yellow alleges Teamsters leadership stalled Phase 2 of its change-of-operations plan, canceled a scheduled hearing, and walked away from the grievance machinery; the Teamsters counter that Yellow’s proposal violated the NMFA and that the company is scapegoating the union for its own financial missteps. The 10th Circuit emphasized it was not deciding the merits—only that Yellow pleaded enough to amend and proceed.
Next steps: The case returns to the District of Kansas, where the judge has been instructed to grant Yellow leave to file an amended complaint reflecting facts that emerged during discovery—and even changes since the appeal was filed. Expect early battles over pleadings, scope of discovery, and which parties properly belong in the case, none of which the appellate court resolved.
Why it matters for trucking: Even though this is an unpublished order, it spotlights a live risk factor in union–carrier showdowns—if one side is found to have “repudiated” the grievance process embedded in the NMFA, the other can try to bypass that process and seek damages in court. For LTL operators planning network redesigns that touch seniority and job scopes, it’s a cautionary tale: document good-faith use of CHOPS committees and grievance channels, and time communications carefully to avoid creating a record that a court could read as stonewalling. For organized carriers, the decision is a reminder that contract fights don’t end at the grievance table—how you conduct that process can shape your exposure later.
The bottom line: the Teamsters haven’t lost this case—the appellate court simply reopened it. But with the dollar figures now measured in billions, the remanded proceedings bear watching across the LTL sector, from competitors that absorbed freight and terminals to creditors waiting to see whether the estate can claw back additional value through litigation.
Sources: FreightWaves, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, Kasowitz LLP
This article was prepared exclusively for TruckStopInsider.com. Republishing is permitted only with proper credit and a link back to the original source.
