The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has issued a ruling in *Tracy R. Anderson v. Secretary, U.S. Department of Homeland Security*, a case challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection's policy of designating certain night shifts at the Port of Tampa as female-only positions. The appeal, decided February 6, 2026, addressed whether CBP's gender-based staffing practices violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The case arose from CBP's decision to designate three night shifts at the Port of Tampa as shifts for females only to ensure female CBP officers would be available to conduct personal searches on female travelers. According to CBP handbook requirements, officers conducting personal searches must be of the same gender as the person being searched, creating operational necessities that the agency argued justified the gender-specific assignments.
Four CBP officers - Tracy Anderson, Sageline Laurent, Rebecca Morales, and Jeffrey Thomas - filed suit against the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, challenging the female-only shift policy. The officers argued that the gender-based staffing violated federal employment discrimination laws under Title VII, which generally prohibits workplace discrimination based on sex.
The case centered on whether CBP's policy qualified for protection under the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception to Title VII. This legal standard allows employers to make hiring or assignment decisions based on protected characteristics like gender only in very limited circumstances where gender is an absolute requirement for the job.
At the district court level, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida considered the officers' motions for judgment as a matter of law. The officers contended that CBP's policy could not meet the strict BFOQ standard required to justify gender-based employment decisions. However, the district court denied their motions, allowing the case to proceed to a jury.
The jury ultimately concluded that CBP's policy was justified by the BFOQ exception, finding that having female officers available to conduct same-gender searches of female travelers constituted a legitimate occupational qualification. This determination reflected the practical operational needs at the port, where personal searches are a routine part of customs and border security procedures.
On appeal to the Eleventh Circuit, the officers challenged the district court's denial of their motions for judgment as a matter of law. They argued that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the female-only shift policy met the strict requirements for a valid BFOQ under Title VII.
The BFOQ defense is one of the narrowest exceptions to Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination in employment. Courts typically require employers to demonstrate that gender is absolutely necessary for the particular job, not merely convenient or traditional. The standard requires showing that gender is essential to the business operation and that there are no reasonable alternatives to the gender-based policy.
In border security operations, same-gender search requirements raise unique legal questions about when gender-based job assignments may be legally justified. CBP's operational needs to have female officers available for searching female travelers during night shifts presented a scenario where the agency argued practical necessities supported gender-specific staffing.
The Eleventh Circuit's consideration of this case reflects ongoing tensions between anti-discrimination principles and operational requirements in federal law enforcement agencies. Border security operations often involve intimate search procedures that implicate both security needs and individual privacy rights, creating complex legal frameworks for staffing decisions.
The case also highlights broader questions about how federal agencies balance equal employment opportunity requirements with operational necessities. When agencies like CBP implement policies that affect job assignments based on gender, they must navigate strict legal standards while maintaining effective security operations.
The court's decision, marked as "not for publication," indicates it was decided on the non-argument calendar, suggesting the panel viewed the legal issues as sufficiently straightforward based on existing precedent. This procedural designation means the opinion will have limited precedential value for future cases.
The ruling affects not only the specific officers involved but also establishes how similar challenges to gender-based staffing policies in federal agencies may be evaluated. The case demonstrates the intersection of employment discrimination law with the practical realities of law enforcement operations that require same-gender interactions.
For federal employees in similar situations, the decision provides guidance on when BFOQ exceptions may be successfully invoked to defend gender-based job assignments. The outcome suggests that operational necessities involving same-gender requirements may meet the strict legal standards for such exceptions when properly supported by evidence.