Case Explained: Tami Barrier Plaintiff— v. United States of America Defendant—

Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Filed: 2026-07-07

The Fifth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the United States and remanded the case for trial. The court held that a reasonable jury could find that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Agent Robert Duran was acting within the course and scope of his employment when he struck plaintiff Tami Barrier with his vehicle, thereby satisfying the Federal Tort Claims Act’s requirement for federal employee liability. The court applied Texas state law to determine whether an employee acts within the course and scope of employment, specifically analyzing the “special-mission exception” to the coming-and-going rule. Under this standard, travel is considered within the scope of employment if it involves a service in furtherance of the employer’s business with express or implied approval. The court identified genuine disputes of material fact regarding whether Duran was on duty at the time of the incident and whether he was traveling home or en route to receive donated pandemic supplies for distribution to other CBP stations at the direction of his union president. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the court concluded that receiving these supplies could be found to benefit the CBP’s mission and constitute a special mission or part of Duran’s regular union duties. The court further rejected the government’s argument that union-specific duties automatically place an employee outside the scope of employment, noting that Duran was a full-time union officer whose duties constituted 80% of his workday and were performed with implied approval from CBP. The practical consequence is that the case proceeds to trial, where a jury will determine whether Duran’s actions were within the course and scope of his employment and whether the United States is vicariously liable for the tortious conduct under the FTCA.

Do It For The Case Law is a news reporting service. Nothing in this episode constitutes legal advice.