Ask The Trucker

Raising the Standards of the Trucking Industry

dac report

Trucking Companies, HireRight and False DAC Reporting


Updated: 9-23-10

The petition to Stop False DAC Reporting has reached 1,654 signatures of support.   Many are still unaware of this petition, but support is growing.

If you have been victimized by companies placing false information on your DAC report and are interested in being contacted concerning a Class Action Lawsuit against the trucking company, HireRight and DAC Services, due to unfair, deceptive and unlawful business practices, please send your permission by using the Contact Petition Sponsor Form from the DAC petition page.


Allen Smith

© 2009 – 2010, Allen Smith. All rights reserved.

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,



By: Allen Smith

Allen Smith is a 37 year veteran who started at an early age in a household goods family moving business. He began driving straight trucks in 1977 and moved to the big rigs in 1982. His experience within the industry includes; owner operator, company driver, operations manager, and owner of a long distance HHG moving business, taking many of the long haul moves himself when needed. Allen Smith, a truck driver advocate who is driven by the desire to help others succeed within an industry where injustice, unrewarded sacrifice, and lack of respect and recognition exists. Allen and his wife Donna are hosts of Truth About Trucking ”Live” on Blog Talk Radio. Other websites include AskTheTrucker, TruckingSocialMedia, NorthAmericanTruckingALerts, TruthAboutTrucking, and many Social Media websites. In 2011 Allen and Donna hosted the first Truck Driver Social Media Convention, designed to create unity and solutions for the trucking industry. This is now being extended through the North American Trucking Alerts network as those within the industry join forces for the betterment of the industry. Allen strongly supports other industry advocates who are also stepping up to the plate to help those who share honesty, guidance and direction. He believes that all those involved in trucking need to be accountable for their part within the industry, including drivers, carriers, brokers, shippers, receivers, etc… The list of supporters and likeminded people grow daily, networking together and sharing thoughts and ideas for the betterment of trucking. He has coined the popular phrase "Raising the standards of the trucking industry"

View all posts by Allen Smith →

Tagged: , , , , ,

24 Responses to Trucking Companies, HireRight and False DAC Reporting. - Post a Comment

  1. dennis sullivan

    maybe the depression will completely destroy them…would be a wonderful thing to see…and worth whatever suffering…the whole arrogant edifice come crashing down!

  2. Allen Smith

    I understand your resentment, but I’m afraid it is going to take the multitude of drivers who have been affected by this false DAC reporting scam to come together and help bring an end to this abuse against our drivers. We now have someone willing to do battle for us, if we now can stand up and push forward ….. email with your DAC experiences . . . here’s our chance to stop this abuse – Allen

  3. paul

    DAC reporting is blackballing! The DMV forgives after 3-5 years, the credit agencies provide letters of satisfaction when the bill is paid before 7 years, hell even a felon serves a lighter sentence time!
    I think truckers should build a union and blackball companies that use the DAC reporting system!

  4. jerry

    i agree they blackball us wth dac we should return the favor

  5. Isaac


  6. Guy

    Who do these trucking companys think they are?if you didn’t kill anyone or cause property more than a certan amount of money then why should we go threw this punishment it’s criminal what there doing.change the standard or f off is what I say

  7. Isaac

    I am interested in learning more about the class action lawsuit against: Dac Service, USIS, or Hireright…etc. I am an unemployed commercial driver who has discovered inaccurate information has been placed on my dac report by my previous employer. Hireright intentionally fails to accurately describe the difference between ACCIDENTS and INCIDENTS by grouping them under one general description ACCIDENT/INCIDENTS. In doing this Hireright can then generalize all incidents as accidents even though an incident does not meet the definition of an accident defined by the Federal Motor Carrier Administration as follows:

    §390.5 Definitions.
    Unless specifically defined elsewhere, in this subchapter:

    Accident means—

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, an occurrence involving a commercial motor vehicle operating on a highway in interstate or intrastate commerce which results in:

    (i) A fatality;

    (ii) Bodily injury to a person who, as a result of the injury, immediately receives medical treatment away from the scene of the accident; or

    (iii) One or more motor vehicles incurring disabling damage as a result of the accident, requiring the motor vehicle(s) to be transported away from the scene by a tow truck or other motor vehicle.

    (2) The term accident does not include:

    (i) An occurrence involving only boarding and alighting from a stationary motor vehicle; or

    (ii) An occurrence involving only the loading or unloading of cargo.

    Since all applications for commercial driver employment require the applicant to declare all ACCIDENTS that the driver has been involved in, the driver is forced to declare the less significant and minor INCIDENTS as ACCIDENTS or face accusation of having lied on their application. This loophole is a major tool used by the Motor Carriers and Hireright to confuse the difference between what is the truth and what is not. Hireright is well aware that they are overstating the significance of these irrelevant incidents as accidents and it has to be stopped. Please contact me with any information regarding your class action lawsuit against Hireright.

    • Allen Smith

      Thank you, your comment is appreciated! Were working on it and are glad to see others are actively seeking solutions also.

    • ABetterDriver

      Yes, its a huge loophole that companies are using too… open themselves up to lawsuits? Plot the demise of a truck driver during a good driver shortage? Here;s the deal. Don’t abandon loads and trucks. Most places look for patterns. Backing into a fence one time on your DAC is not preventing you from getting hired. If you have multiple “incidents” at every stop during your career, maybe that is the problem? IF you are with a company for 4-5 years, sure, there is probably going to be a ding on there, but the whole “4-5 years with the company” part erases any “Hit a Fixed Object” report on the DAC.

      It’s just another excuse who the “woe is me” crowd. Quit driving for criminals, quit falling for the “you knew it was too good to be true” pitch, and do your research on a company before joining them. There is no excuse anymore. With the internet full of info on EVERY trucking company, no one feels sorry for the drivers switching jobs every 3 months. If your DAC has more than 5 companies reporting on it, maybe the problem isn’t with DAC…

  8. Allen Smith

    Thanks Issac. Work is in progress, and we are informing those who would like to be contacted (in the future) about any suit brought against HireRight, to give their permission by using the Contact Petition Sponsor Form on the Dac Petition:


  9. Isaac

    The following statement is an exerpt from the website:

    So the question remains: is the DAC Report unconstitutional? For the answer, I turned to Attorney Paul Taylor and this is what he said:

    “The Bill of Rights applies to Government action, not private actions of motor carriers and consumer-reporting agencies. As far as the DAC Report is concerned, they are definitely constitutional.”

    I disagree! Accident investigating and reporting by Motor Carriers is mandatory and regulated by the Federal Motor Carrier Administration under 391.23. Thus interjecting a government role to the proccess. This is enough to require due proccess of law. I would challenge anyone to argue that the government has the authority to mandate investigating and reporting by motor carriers regarding drivers accident while at the same time bear no obligation to require those investigations and reporting to provide DUE PROCCESS OF LAW. DAC REPORTING IS NOT THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULES AND THE RULE OF THE LAND THE CONSTITUTION DOES APPLY TO DAC REPORTING. DAC REPORTING IN IT’S CURRENT FORM IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    Background and character

    §391.23 Investigation and inquiries.
    (a) Except as provided in Subpart G of this part, each motor carrier shall make the following investigations and inquiries with respect to each driver it employs, other than a person who has been a regularly employed driver of the motor carrier for a continuous period which began before January 1, 1971:

    (a)(1) An inquiry to each State where the driver held or holds a motor vehicle operator’s license or permit during the preceding 3 years to obtain that driver’s motor vehicle record.

    (a)(2) An investigation of the driver’s safety performance history with Department of Transportation regulated employers during the preceding three years.

    (b) A copy of the motor vehicle record(s) obtained in response to the inquiry or inquiries to each State required by paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be placed in the driver qualification file within 30 days of the date the driver’s employment begins and be retained in compliance with §391.51. If no motor vehicle record is received from the State or States required to submit this response, the motor carrier must document a good faith effort to obtain such information, and certify that no record exists for that driver in that State or States. The inquiry to the State driver licensing agency or agencies must be made in the form and manner each agency prescribes.

    (c)(1) Replies to the investigations of the driver’s safety performance history required by paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or documentation of good faith efforts to obtain the investigation data, must be placed in the driver investigation history file, after October 29, 2004, within 30 days of the date the driver’s employment begins. Any period of time required to exercise the driver’s due process rights to review the information received, request a previous employer to correct or include a rebuttal, is separate and apart from this 30-day requirement to document investigation of the driver safety performance history data.

    (c)(2) The investigation may consist of personal interviews, telephone interviews, letters, or any other method for investigating that the carrier deems appropriate. Each motor carrier must make a written record with respect to each previous employer contacted, or good faith efforts to do so. The record must include the previous employer’s name and address, the date the previous employer was contacted, or the attempts made, and the information received about the driver from the previous employer. Failures to contact a previous employer, or of them to provide the required safety performance history information, must be documented. The record must be maintained pursuant to §391.53.

    (c)(3) Prospective employers should report failures of previous employers to respond to an investigation to the FMCSA following procedures specified at §386.12 of this chapter and keep a copy of such reports in the Driver Investigation file as part of documenting a good faith effort to obtain the required information.

    (c)(4) Exception. For drivers with no previous employment experience working for a DOT regulated employer during the preceding three years, documentation that no investigation was possible must be placed in the driver history investigation file, after October 29, 2004, within the required 30 days of the date the driver’s employment begins.

    (d) The prospective motor carrier must investigate, at a minimum, the information listed in this paragraph from all previous employers of the applicant that employed the driver to operate a CMV within the previous three years. The investigation request must contain specific contact information on where the previous motor carrier employers should send the information requested.

    (d)(1) General driver identification and employment verification information.

    (d)(2) The data elements as specified in §390.15(b)(1) of this chapter for accidents involving the driver that occurred in the three-year period preceding the date of the employment application.

    (d)(2)(i) Any accidents as defined by §390.5 of this chapter.

    (d)(2)(ii) Any accidents the previous employer may wish to provide that are retained pursuant to §390.15(b)(2), or pursuant to the employer’s internal policies for retaining more detailed minor accident information.

    (e) In addition to the investigations required by paragraph (d) of this section, the prospective motor carrier employers must investigate the information listed below in this paragraph from all previous DOT regulated employers that employed the driver within the previous three years from the date of the employment application, in a safety-sensitive function that required alcohol and controlled substance testing specified by 49 CFR part 40.

    (e)(1) Whether, within the previous three years, the driver had violated the alcohol and controlled substances prohibitions under subpart B of part 382 of this chapter, or 49 CFR part 40.

    (e)(2) Whether the driver failed to undertake or complete a rehabilitation program prescribed by a substance abuse professional (SAP) pursuant to §382.605 of this chapter, or 49 CFR part 40, subpart O. If the previous employer does not know this information (e.g., an employer that terminated an employee who tested positive on a drug test), the prospective motor carrier must obtain documentation of the driver’s successful completion of the SAP’s referral directly from the driver.

    (e)(3) For a driver who had successfully completed a SAP’s rehabilitation referral, and remained in the employ of the referring employer, information on whether the driver had the following testing violations subsequent to completion of a §382.605 or 49 CFR part 40, subpart O referral:

    (e)(3)(i) Alcohol tests with a result of 0.04 or higher alcohol concentration;

    (e)(3)(ii) Verified positive drug tests;

    (e)(3)(iii) Refusals to be tested (including verified adulterated or substituted drug test results).

    (f) A prospective motor carrier employer must provide to the previous employer the driver’s written consent meeting the requirements of §40.321(b) for the release of the information in paragraph (e) of this section. If the driver refuses to provide this written consent, the prospective motor carrier employer must not permit the driver to operate a commercial motor vehicle for that motor carrier.

    (g) After October 29, 2004, previous employers must:

    (g)(1) Respond to each request for the DOT defined information in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section within 30 days after the request is received. If there is no safety performance history information to report for that driver, previous motor carrier employers are nonetheless required to send a response confirming the non-existence of any such data, including the driver identification information and dates of employment.

    (g)(2) Take all precautions reasonably necessary to ensure the accuracy of the records.

    (g)(3) Provide specific contact information in case a driver chooses to contact the previous employer regarding correction or rebuttal of the data.

    (g)(4) Keep a record of each request and the response for one year, including the date, the party to whom it was released, and a summary identifying what was provided.

    (g)(5) Exception. Until May 1, 2006, carriers need only provide information for accidents that occurred after April 29, 2003.

    (h) The release of information under this section may take any form that reasonably ensures confidentiality, including letter, facsimile, or e-mail. The previous employer and its agents and insurers must take all precautions reasonably necessary to protect the driver safety performance history records from disclosure to any person not directly involved in forwarding the records, except the previous employer’s insurer, except that the previous employer may not provide any alcohol or controlled substances information to the previous employer’s insurer.

    (i)(1) The prospective employer must expressly notify drivers with Department of Transportation regulated employment during the preceding three years—via the application form or other written document prior to any hiring decision—that he or she has the following rights regarding the investigative information that will be provided to the prospective employer pursuant to paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section:

    (i)(1)(i) The right to review information provided by previous employers;

    (i)(1)(ii) The right to have errors in the information corrected by the previous employer and for that previous employer to re-send the corrected information to the prospective employer;

    (i)(1)(iii) The right to have a rebuttal statement attached to the alleged erroneous information, if the previous employer and the driver cannot agree on the accuracy of the information.

    (i)(2) Drivers who have previous Department of Transportation regulated employment history in the preceding three years, and wish to review previous employer-provided investigative information must submit a written request to the prospective employer, which may be done at any time, including when applying, or as late as 30 days after being employed or being notified of denial of employment. The prospective employer must provide this information to the applicant within five (5) business days of receiving the written request. If the prospective employer has not yet received the requested information from the previous employer(s), then the five-business days deadline will begin when the prospective employer receives the requested safety performance history information. If the driver has not arranged to pick up or receive the requested records within thirty (30) days of the prospective employer making them available, the prospective motor carrier may consider the driver to have waived his/her request to review the records.

    (j)(1) Drivers wishing to request correction of erroneous information in records received pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section must send the request for the correction to the previous employer that provided the records to the prospective employer.

    (j)(2) After October 29, 2004, the previous employer must either correct and forward the information to the prospective motor carrier employer, or notify the driver within 15 days of receiving a driver’s request to correct the data that it does not agree to correct the data. If the previous employer corrects and forwards the data as requested, that employer must also retain the corrected information as part of the driver’s safety performance history record and provide it to subsequent prospective employers when requests for this information are received. If the previous employer corrects the data and forwards it to the prospective motor carrier employer, there is no need to notify the driver.

    (j)(3) Drivers wishing to rebut information in records received pursuant to paragraph (i) of this section must send the rebuttal to the previous employer with instructions to include the rebuttal in that driver’s safety performance history.

    (j)(4) After October 29, 2004, within five business days of receiving a rebuttal from a driver, the previous employer must:

    (j)(4)(i) Forward a copy of the rebuttal to the prospective motor carrier employer;

    (j)(4)(ii) Append the rebuttal to the driver’s information in the carrier’s appropriate file, to be included as part of the response for any subsequent investigating prospective employers for the duration of the three-year data retention requirement.

    (j)(5) The driver may submit a rebuttal initially without a request for correction, or subsequent to a request for correction.

    (j)(6) The driver may report failures of previous employers to correct information or include the driver’s rebuttal as part of the safety performance information, to the FMCSA following procedures specified at §386.12.

    (k)(1) The prospective motor carrier employer must use the information described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section only as part of deciding whether to hire the driver.

    (k)(2) The prospective motor carrier employer, its agents and insurers must take all precautions reasonably necessary to protect the records from disclosure to any person not directly involved in deciding whether to hire the driver. The prospective motor carrier employer may not provide any alcohol or controlled substances information to the prospective motor carrier employer’s insurer.

    (l)(1) No action or proceeding for defamation, invasion of privacy, or interference with a contract that is based on the furnishing or use of information in accordance with this section may be brought against—

    (i) A motor carrier investigating the information, described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, of an individual under consideration for employment as a commercial motor vehicle driver,

    (l)(1)(ii) A person who has provided such information; or

    (l)(1)(iii) The agents or insurers of a person described in paragraph (l)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, except insurers are not granted a limitation on liability for any alcohol and controlled substance information.

    (l)(2) The protections in paragraph (l)(1) of this section do not apply to persons who knowingly furnish false information, or who are not in compliance with the procedures specified for these investigations.

    (m)(1) The motor carrier must obtain an original or copy of the medical examiner’s certificate issued in accordance with §391.43, and any medical variance on which the certification is based, and place the records in the driver qualification file, before allowing the driver to operate a CMV.

    (m)(2) Exception. For drivers required to have a commercial driver’s license under part 383 of this chapter:

    (m)(2)(i) Beginning January 30, 2012, using the CDLIS motor vehicle record obtained from the current licensing State, the motor carrier must verify and document in the driver qualification file the following information before allowing the driver to operate a CMV:

    (m)(2)(i)(A) The type of operation the driver self-certified that he or she will perform in accordance with §383.71(a)(1)(ii) and 383.71(g) of this chapter, or

    (m)(2)(i)(B) Exception. If the driver provided the motor carrier with a copy of the current medical examiner’s certificate that was submitted to the State in accordance with §383.73(a)(5) of this chapter, the motor carrier may use a copy of that medical examiner’s certificate as proof of the driver’s medical certification for up to 15 days after the date it was issued.

    (m)(2)(ii) Until January 30, 2014, if a driver operating in non-excepted, interstate commerce has no medical certification status information on the CDLIS MVR obtained from the current State driver licensing agency, the employing motor carrier may accept a medical examiner’s certificate issued to that driver prior to January 30, 2012, and place a copy of it in the driver qualification file before allowing the driver to operate a CMV in interstate commerce.

    (Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 2126-0004)

    [35 FR 6460, Apr. 22, 1970, as amended at 35 FR 17420, Nov. 13, 1970; 69 FR 16720, March 30, 2004; 72 FR 55703, Oct. 1, 2007; 73 FR 73126, Dec. 1, 2008; 75 FR 28502, May 21, 2010]

  10. Isaac

    This was taken from the Wikipedia definition of Due Process:

    Procedural due process
    In the United States, criminal prosecutions and CIVIL CASES are generally governed by explicit guarantees of procedural rights under the Bill of Rights. Most of these rights have been incorporated under the Fourteenth Amendment to the States. Among those rights is the constitutional right to procedural due process, which has been broadly construed to protect the individual so that statutes, regulations, and enforcement actions must ensure that no one is deprived of “life, liberty, or property” without a fair opportunity to affect the judgment or result.

    This protection extends to all government proceedings that can result in an individual’s deprivation, whether civil or criminal in nature, from parole violation hearings to administrative hearings regarding government benefits and entitlements to full-blown criminal trials. In criminal cases, many of these due process protections overlap with procedural protections provided by the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees reliable procedures that protect innocent people from being executed, which would be tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment.[26]

    At a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of “fundamental fairness.” For example, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court held that due process is violated “if a practice or rule offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental”.[27] As construed by the courts, it includes an individual’s right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings, and that the person or panel making the final decision over the proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them.[28]

    Or, to put it more simply, where an individual is facing a (1) deprivation of (2) life, liberty, or property, (3) procedural due process mandates that he or she is entitled to adequate notice, a hearing, and a NEUTRAL JUDGE.

  11. james

    if there having trouble to get a driving job , then do i have to get a own tractor and trailer to work?

  12. Joshua Israel

    I am the person who started this in 2005. I have been denied judgment on this issue since 2009, and the 8th Circuit Appellate Court has denied my Mandamus to compel the ARB to render a decision, so keep up the pressure, when I win, I will win for everyone. They are trying to kill this issue by killing me, so don’t let my efforts be in vain…

  13. Michael Hendrickson

    so i got a copy of this lawsuit james ryals v. hireright solutions but shows this is taking place in virginia. my questions are is this in every state and also in 2009 i applied to a trucking school out of indianapolis, indiana and was cleared to join but then 3 days before leaving i got a call being denied. could this hireright background check have caused this or what?

    • Allen Smith

      Not if you’ve never been employed as a driver

  14. smith

    I am glad to see Hire right get sued. The had me posted as a convinced. Felon. I was forced to switch careers after fighting them 2 or more years and being unemployed for a year. or more. I think what is offered in the class action suit. Is a insult. I spend that in gas going back and forth’ what about the paper work: background check’s. Constantly. Getting doors slamed in you. face.The embarrasment trying to convinced someone. That this is not true what their reading. I could. Go on and on. Im a ex trucker turned Nurse. All we wanted was to feed or families. We did nothing wronged. They should be suited and force to close. Permanently. That’s fair.

  15. Allen Smith

    Let’s not forget that it is those motor carriers who provide this false information to HireRight. As long as they are “paying customers” HireRight will accept whatever info they send them. It’s all about the money. HireRight’s biggest mistake is not providing drivers their due process under the law, in order to dispute false information on their DAC reports. They have the little “dispute” form, but this basically does nothing for the driver and is a way for them to protect themselves under the “law.”

  16. gary

    we know this

  17. gary

    still no help,,,,we need something that can stop there world as they do us

  18. Allen Smith

    There is … if drivers would begin exercising their rights and flood the EEOC and OSHA with complaints against the DAC report, they would have to take notice.

    They should also write letters to their State Representative:

    They should write letters to the Senate:

    The problem with many truck drivers is that they want “someone else” to do it for them, but it takes ALL to work toward the common goal.

    More than that . . . it takes ACTION!

  19. Duane A Barden

    While going thru some papers back in Nov 2010 realized that court put wrong documenting(cause) numbers on them. The cause number that were revealed were of a person that has had OWI conviction from back in 1997.Problem being that my court date being of July 2003. Ive went back to courthouse several times to see if they would straight things out but to no avail. Researching this same person I found that in 2004 he has lost his priviledge to drive for 10 yrs after total accruing 3 OWI’s. He’s now tring to get it back.(he’s also purchased alcohol for a minor n convicted) What’s the Statues of limitations on identity theft.I’ve had my CDL since 1986 with only minor infractions.(No felonies) Ive sold my home,lost employment,put through pain and suffering because of this guy and the county court system.

What do you have to say about this?

To the top