Legal Matters	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2019
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	NOTE 10. Legal Matters We are a defendant in three putative class-action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items. Those cases are Robert Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, LLC, et.al. (Sacramento Superior Court), a second lawsuit Robert Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, LLC (Sacramento Superior Court), and Mario Mendez v. Estenson Logistics, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court). Because of the preliminary nature of these proceedings, the difficulty in ascertaining the applicable facts, the inconsistent treatment of claims made in the proceedings, and the difficulty of predicting the settlement value of these proceedings, we are not able to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible losses. Based on management's present knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from these pending matters are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's overall financial position, operating results, or cash flows after taking into account any existing accruals. However, actual outcomes could be material to the Company's financial position, operating results, or cash flows for any particular period. Robles On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary Hub Group Trucking, Inc (“HGT”). The action is brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for HGT who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August 2014. It alleges HGT has misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. It asserts various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that HGT has engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney’s fees. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles’ status as an employed company driver. These additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class. The Company believes that the California independent contractor truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times. Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business operations, HGT decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting liability. As of June 30, 2019, 96% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, HGT decided to convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers in California (the “Conversion”). In early 2016, HGT closed its operations in Southern California. On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which names 334 current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as “interested putative class members.” In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-Conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are unenforceable. In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking’s motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court. The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported class members who have signed settlement agreements and on plaintiffs’ claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with respect to federal preemption and choice of law. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the Court’s dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with or without prejudice and, if the dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the Court to revise and reconsider the order. On July 2, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration and stated that the dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with prejudice. Adame On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs’ law firm in the Robles case filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group Trucking and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Of the 63 named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement offers referenced above. On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to move the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case because there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy threshold is not satisfied. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand to the state court in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016. On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed dismissal papers in state court, asking the court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit for various reasons, including that the agreement between HGT and its former California owner operators requires that this action be brought in Memphis, Tennessee, or stay the action pending the outcome of Robles. Defendants also asked the court to dismiss the individual defendants because PAGA’s language does not allow for individual liability. During a hearing on October 5, 2016, the judge issued an oral tentative ruling stating that the choice of forum provision was unenforceable. On February 17, 2017, with the stipulation of the parties, the Court entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, all of the individual Defendants and accepting the parties’ agreement that jurisdiction and venue are proper in the San Bernardino Superior Court and that Defendants will not seek to remove the case to federal district court. On April 12, 2017, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of the PAGA letter notice. On October 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dismissing the previously named individuals as Defendants. On December 4, 2017, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings arguing that judgement should be entered for Defendants because Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Federal Truth-In-Leasing regulations. On January 31, 2018, a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss, and on February 1, 2018, the motion was denied. On March 27, 2018, Defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeals. On June 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. On June 21, 2018, Defendants filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On August 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review.

Legal Matters

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2019

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 10. Legal Matters

We are a defendant in three putative class-action lawsuits in which the plaintiffs are current and former California-based drivers who allege claims for unpaid wages, failure to provide meal and rest periods, and other items. Those cases are Robert Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, LLC, et.al. (Sacramento Superior Court), a second lawsuit Robert Parsons v. Estenson Logistics, LLC (Sacramento Superior Court), and Mario Mendez v. Estenson Logistics, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court). Because of the preliminary nature of these proceedings, the difficulty in ascertaining the applicable facts, the inconsistent treatment of claims made in the proceedings, and the difficulty of predicting the settlement value of these proceedings, we are not able to estimate an amount or range of any reasonably possible losses. Based on management's present knowledge, management does not believe that loss contingencies arising from these pending matters are likely to have a material adverse effect on the Company's overall financial position, operating results, or cash flows after taking into account any existing accruals. However, actual outcomes could be material to the Company's financial position, operating results, or cash flows for any particular period.

Robles

On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary Hub Group Trucking, Inc (“HGT”). The action is brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for HGT who were classified as independent contractors, from January 2009 to August 2014. It alleges HGT has misclassified such drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. It asserts various violations of the California Labor Code and claims that HGT has engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint seeks, among other things, declaratory and injunctive relief, monetary damages and attorney’s fees. In May 2013, the complaint was amended to add similar claims based on Mr. Robles’ status as an employed company driver. These additional claims are only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class.

The Company believes that the California independent contractor truck drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times. Nevertheless, because lawsuits are expensive, time-consuming and could interrupt our business operations, HGT decided to make settlement offers to individual drivers with respect to the claims alleged in this lawsuit, without admitting liability. As of June 30, 2019, 96% of the California drivers have accepted the settlement offers. In late 2014, HGT decided to convert its model from independent contractors to employee drivers in California (the “Conversion”). In early 2016, HGT closed its operations in Southern California.

On April 3, 2015, the Robles case was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee (Western Division) in Memphis. In May 2015, the plaintiffs in the Robles case filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) which names 334 current and former Hub Group Trucking drivers as “interested putative class members.” In addition to reasserting their existing claims, the SAC includes claims post-Conversion, added two new plaintiffs and seeks a judicial declaration that the settlement agreements are unenforceable. In June 2015, Hub Group Trucking filed a motion to dismiss the SAC and on July 19, 2016, Hub Group Trucking’s motion to dismiss was granted in part, and denied in part, by the District Court. The motion to dismiss was granted for the claims of all purported class members who have signed settlement agreements and on plaintiffs’ claims based on quantum merit and it was denied with respect to federal preemption and choice of law. On August 11, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion to clarify whether the Court’s dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with or without prejudice and, if the dismissal was with prejudice, Plaintiffs moved the Court to revise and reconsider the order. On July 2, 2018, the Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification or Reconsideration and stated that the dismissal of the claims of all purported class members who signed settlement agreements was with prejudice.

Adame

On August 5, 2015, the Plaintiffs’ law firm in the Robles case filed a lawsuit in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against Hub Group Trucking and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in Robles and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. Of the 63 named Plaintiffs, at least 58 of them previously accepted the settlement offers referenced above.

On October 29, 2015, Defendants filed a notice of removal to move the case from state court in San Bernardino to federal court in the Central District of California. On November 19, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case back to state court, claiming that the federal court lacks jurisdiction over the case because there is not complete diversity of citizenship between the parties and the amount in controversy threshold is not satisfied. The court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to remand to the state court in San Bernardino County on April 7, 2016.

On July 11, 2016, Defendants filed dismissal papers in state court, asking the court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ suit for various reasons, including that the agreement between HGT and its former California owner operators requires that this action be brought in Memphis, Tennessee, or stay the action pending the outcome of Robles. Defendants also asked the court to dismiss the individual defendants because PAGA’s language does not allow for individual liability. During a hearing on October 5, 2016, the judge issued an oral tentative ruling stating that the choice of forum provision was unenforceable. On February 17, 2017, with the stipulation of the parties, the Court entered an order dismissing, without prejudice, all of the individual Defendants and accepting the parties’ agreement that jurisdiction and venue are proper in the San Bernardino Superior Court and that Defendants will not seek to remove the case to federal district court. On April 12, 2017, the Court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of the PAGA letter notice. On October 19, 2017, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, dismissing the previously named individuals as Defendants. On December 4, 2017, Defendants filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of their Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings arguing that judgement should be entered for Defendants because Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by the Federal Truth-In-Leasing regulations. On January 31, 2018, a hearing was held on the motion to dismiss, and on February 1, 2018, the motion was denied. On March 27, 2018, Defendants filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the Court of Appeals. On June 12, 2018, the Court of Appeals denied the petition. On June 21, 2018, Defendants filed a petition for review with the California Supreme Court. On August 8, 2018, the Supreme Court of California denied the petition for review.