Legal Matters	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Legal Matters	NOTE 16. Legal Matters Robles On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary HGT. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for HGT who, from January 2009 to September 2014 were classified as independent contractors. It alleged that HGT misclassified these drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. It asserted various violations of the California Labor Code and claimed that HGT engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint sought, 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 were only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class. Although the Company believes that the California drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times because litigation is 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 and the expense for this charge was recorded in 2014. 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. Adame On August 5, 2015, a suit was filed in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against HGT and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in the Robles case and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. As mentioned above, plaintiffs’ counsel and Hub Group agreed in principle to settle this and the Robles matters. In September 2019, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Hub agreed in principle to settle all claims under both the Robles and Adame matters for $4.8 million, which has been recorded as Accrued other in the Consolidated Balance Sheet and General and administrative costs in the Consolidated Statement of Income and Comprehensive Income for the year ended 2019. The settlements are subject to final court approval. We are involved in certain other claims and pending litigation arising from the normal conduct of business, including 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, failure to reimburse incurred business expenses and other items. 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.

Legal Matters

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 16. Legal Matters

Robles

On January 25, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California (Sacramento Division) by Salvador Robles against our subsidiary HGT. The action was brought on behalf of a class comprised of present and former California-based truck drivers for HGT who, from January 2009 to September 2014 were classified as independent contractors. It alleged that HGT misclassified these drivers as independent contractors and that such drivers were employees. It asserted various violations of the California Labor Code and claimed that HGT engaged in unfair competition practices. The complaint sought, 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 were only on behalf of Mr. Robles and not a putative class.

Although the Company believes that the California drivers were properly classified as independent contractors at all times because litigation is 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 and the expense for this charge was recorded in 2014. 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.

Adame

On August 5, 2015, a suit was filed in state court in San Bernardino County, California on behalf of 63 named Plaintiffs against HGT and five Company employees. The lawsuit alleges claims similar to those being made in the Robles case and seeks monetary penalties under the Private Attorneys General Act. As mentioned above, plaintiffs’ counsel and Hub Group agreed in principle to settle this and the Robles matters.

In September 2019, Plaintiffs’ counsel and Hub agreed in principle to settle all claims under both the Robles and Adame matters for $4.8 million, which has been recorded as Accrued other in the Consolidated Balance Sheet and General and administrative costs in the Consolidated Statement of Income and Comprehensive Income for the year ended 2019. The settlements are subject to final court approval.

We are involved in certain other claims and pending litigation arising from the normal conduct of business, including 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, failure to reimburse incurred business expenses and other items. 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.