Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-01-05010/USCOURTS-caDC-01-05010-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

Argued January 10, 2002 Decided June 14, 2002

No. 01-5010

Christine A. Lozowski,

Appellee

v.

Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation,

Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia

(No. 98cv00922)

Fred E. Haynes, Assistant U.S. Attorney, argued the cause

for appellant. With him on the briefs were Roscoe C. Howard, Jr., U.S. Attorney, R. Craig Lawrence, Assistant U.S.

Attorney, and Dale C. Andrews, Deputy Assistant General

Counsel, U.S. Department of Transportation.

Eugene R. Fidell argued the cause and filed the brief for

appellee.

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 1 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Before: Ginsburg, Chief Judge, and Randolph and Tatel,

Circuit Judges.

Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge Ginsburg.

Ginsburg, Chief Judge: An officer of the Coast Guard

claims that the service treated her unjustly and discriminated

against her based upon her gender when it assigned her to a

ship in Key West, Florida. The Secretary of Transportation,

to whom the officer applied for a correction of her military

record, disagreed. The district court found the decision of

the Secretary to be arbitrary and capricious, and the Secretary appealed. Finding the Secretary's decision reasonable

and supported by substantial evidence, we reverse the judgment of the district court.

I. Background

In early 1995 Christine Lozowski, then a Chief Petty

Officer stationed in Washington, D.C., applied and was selected to be promoted to Chief Warrant Officer (CWO). She was

not immediately assigned to a CWO position, however. Instead she was placed on the warrant officer selection list,

from which individuals were promoted sequentially as positions came open. In late summer 1995, the Coast Guard

sought to fill two CWO vacancies that would arise in early

1996. The first vacancy was aboard the Seneca, a cutter

based out of Boston. For this slot, the Coast Guard preferred a "Finance and Supply" CWO with a "storekeeper

background." The second vacancy was in Ketchikan, Alaska.

Lozowski, who had a storekeeper background, was second on

the warrant officer selection list at the time the assignments

were to be made. She preferred to be assigned to Coast

Guard headquarters in D.C. or to Yorktown or Portsmouth,

Virginia, whereas her least desired locations were Alaska and

California. The first person on the selection list was Mark

Cornejo, who was serving in Alaska (his most desired service

area) and had a food service background. The situation can

be summarized as follows:

_____________________________________________________________________________

Available CWO Openings

______________________________________________________________________________

Cornejo: first on list, food The Seneca: starting 

Feb. 1,

service background, prefers 1996, in Boston, storekeeper

Alaska; presently in Alaska. background preferred.

______________________________________________________________________________

Lozowski: second on list, Ketchikan: starting April 

1,

storekeeper background, 1996, in Alaska

prefers D.C. or VA, last

choice Alaska or CA; presently in D.C. .

______________________________________________________________________________

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 2 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

The assignment officer in charge of filling these openings

was CWO Gray. At first Gray wanted to assign Lozowski to

the Seneca and Cornejo to Ketchikan where he would for

several months be "double-billeted," that is, would overlap

with the officer he was replacing. The arrangement would

keep Cornejo in Alaska, prevent Lozowski from having to go

to Alaska -- in accord with the wishes of each -- and assign a

CWO with a storekeeper background to the Seneca. Gray

soon found out, however, that the Seneca did not have

berthing space for a woman. Gray knew that CWO Rich, a

male CWO with a storekeeper background assigned to the

Thetis out of Key West, wanted to transfer to New England

to be near his family and was willing to pay his own moving

expenses. Gray called the Executive Officer of the Thetis

and learned that the ship had berthing space for a woman.

(There is also evidence that Gray thought the Thetis "needed"

a woman officer.) The information relevant at this point can

be summarized as follows:

______________________________________________________________________________

Available CWO Openings

______________________________________________________________________________

Cornejo: first on list, a man, The Seneca: starting 

Feb. 1,

food service background, 1996, in Boston, storekeeper

prefers Alaska; presently in background preferred, no

Alaska. berthing for a woman.

_____________________________________________________________________________

Lozowski: second on list, a Ketchikan: starting April 

1,

woman, storekeeper back- 1996, in Alaska.

ground, prefers D.C. or VA,

last choice Alaska or CA;

presently in D.C.

______________________________________________________________________________

Rich: a man, storekeeper The Thetis: in Key West,

background, wants to be in berthing for a woman availNew England; presently on able.

the Thetis in Key West.

______________________________________________________________________________

Facing this situation, Gray proposed that the Coast Guard

assign Cornejo to Alaska, Rich to the Seneca, and Lozowski

to the Thetis. The plan was approved by Gray's superiors

and the parties were notified. Cornejo said he would accept

the Alaska assignment but Lozowski asked to be assigned to

somewhere in the D.C. area. She expressed concern that if

she moved from D.C. she would be forced to sell her home at

a loss. Gray said he could not give her an assignment in the

D.C. area because it would require double-billeting. Lozowski then declined the assignment to the Thetis and therefore

lost her chance at a promotion to CWO. Rich was notified

that he would not be transferred to the Seneca and the

Seneca position was filled by CWO Smith, who was the next

in line behind Lozowski and had a background in food service.

In 1997 Lozowski applied to the Department of Transportation Board for Correction of Military Records for a retroactive promotion pursuant to 10 U.S.C. s 1552(a)(1). That

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 3 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

statute authorizes the Secretary of Transportation, "acting

through boards of civilians," to "correct any military record of

the Secretary's department when the Secretary considers it

necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice." Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. s 52.64(b), the decision of the Board serves

as the decision of the Secretary only if the Board is unanimous. If the Board is divided, then the Secretary or his

delegate has the final word.

Lozowski claimed that the Coast Guard both assigned her

"out of sequence" and disregarded Article 4.A.7.a.3 of the

Coast Guard Personnel Manual, which provides that "women

will not arbitrarily be denied an assignment solely because of

lack of a second woman." The latter claim was based upon

Lozowski's belief that she was assigned to the Thetis because

the Coast Guard planned to assign a female ensign to that

ship and wanted to avoid having only one woman on board.

The Board unanimously denied Lozowski's application. Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: Christine

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 4 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

A. Lozowski, B.C.M.R. Doc. No. 114-97 at 7 (April 9, 1998)

(First Bd. Dec.).

Lozowski then petitioned for review in the district court,

which remanded the matter to the Board on the grounds that

it had erred procedurally and had failed to address two

arguments the court thought Lozowski had raised. Lozowski

v. Slater, No. 98-0922 at 8-13 (D.D.C. 1999) (Lozowski I).

On remand two members of the Board would have upheld

Lozowski's claim; they concluded that although the Coast

Guard had not discriminated against her on the basis of her

gender, it had been "unfair" in treating Cornejo and Rich

more favorably than it had treated her. Application for

Correction of Coast Guard Record of: Christine A. Lozowski,

B.C.M.R. Doc. No. 2000-008 at 22 (Nov. 18, 1999) (Second Bd.

Dec.). Because the Board's decision was not unanimous,

however, the matter was forwarded to the Secretary for

"approval, disapproval, or return for further consideration."

33 C.F.R. s 52.64(b). The Secretary's delegate, the Deputy

General Counsel (DGC) of the Coast Guard, ruled against

Lozowski.

The DGC concluded that the Coast Guard committed no

error or injustice in assigning Lozowski to the Thetis, Application for Correction of Coast Guard Record of: Christine A.

Lozowski, Dec. of the Dep. Gen. Counsel, B.C.M.R. Doc. No.

2000-008 at 10 (Dec. 6, 1999) (DGC Dec.); Lozowski could not

have been assigned to the Seneca because there was no

berthing space for a woman on board, id. at 7. Further, she

held, it was permissible under the applicable regulations to

assign Cornejo to Alaska even though the Seneca was first on

the list of openings, and to fill the opening on the Seneca with

CWO Rich from the Thetis. Id. at 5. Finally, the DGC

determined that there had been no gender discrimination and

that

the basis for any difference in treatment was not gender,

but the fact that the perceived preferences expressed by

the two male officers generally paralleled Coast Guard

needs, while the preferences [Lozowski] expressed did

not....

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 5 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Id. at 9. The DGC did acknowledge, however, that the

assignment officer, Gray, "has not denied stating that the

applicant was receiving orders to the Thetis because she was

a female and the Thetis needed a female." Id.

After the DGC's decision, upon renewed cross-motions the

district court granted summary judgment for Lozowski and,

instead of remanding the matter to the Secretary, purported

to appoint her a CWO retroactive to January 1, 1996. Lozowski v. Slater, No. 98-0922 at 13 (D.D.C. 2000) (Lozowski II).

The court held that the DGC's decision was arbitrary and

capricious because it failed adequately to address two nonfrivolous arguments the majority of the Board had accepted:

that (1) the Coast Guard had not shown the relevant assignments best satisfied the needs of the service; and (2) the

Coast Guard committed an injustice because it was willing to

double-billet Cornejo in Alaska but unwilling to double-billet

Lozowski in D.C. Id. at 9-12. The Secretary of Transportation now appeals.

II. Analysis

Because the district court entered a summary judgment,

we review its decision de novo and therefore, in effect, review

directly the decision of the Secretary. See Frizelle v. Slater,

111 F.3d 172, 176 (D.C. Cir. 1997). Under the APA we must

uphold the Secretary's decision unless it is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, [ ] otherwise not in accordance

with law," or "unsupported by substantial evidence." 5

U.S.C. s 706. This test requires that the Secretary's decision

contain a "rational connection between the facts found and

the choice made." Motor Vehicles Mfrs. Ass'n. v. State

Farm, 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983).

A. The Decision of the District Court

Although we review the decision of the Secretary directly,

as though the district court had not weighed in, a due regard

for the opinion of that court leads us to point out where and

why we disagree with its analysis. According to the district

court the DGC failed to explain why: (1) the needs of the

Coast Guard were best satisfied by the assignment of LozowUSCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 6 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

ski to the Thetis, Cornejo to Alaska, and Rich to the Seneca;

and (2) the Coast Guard was willing to double-billet Cornejo

in Alaska but unwilling to double-billet Lozowski in D.C.

Lozowski II, No. 98-0922 at 9-12. Lozowski feints in the

direction of defending the opinion of the district court but

devotes most of her efforts to developing alternative grounds

upon which to uphold that court's judgment in her favor. We

begin with the arguments embraced by the district court.

1. Service needs

The district court held that the DGC did not adequately

explain "why the Coast Guard's service needs were best

satisfied" by the various assignments contemporaneous with

and including that of Lozowski. Id. at 9. Specifically, the

district court thought the Coast Guard had failed to explain

why Cornejo, who was first on the promotion list, was not

assigned to the Seneca, and had failed to show that Rich, who

was assigned to the Seneca, was "the best person for the job."

Id. at 10. The Secretary maintains that the DGC adequately

explained why the needs of the Coast Guard were furthered

by sending Rich to the Seneca and Cornejo to Alaska and

that she did not need to show that Rich was the best person

for the job on the Seneca. We agree.

The Secretary is authorized to correct errors and injustices, see 10 U.S.C. s 1552, not to ensure that every assignment best serves the needs of the Coast Guard. Thus, the

relevant question is whether the DGC reasonably concluded

that the assignment of Lozowski was neither erroneous nor

unjust. Indeed, Lozowski agrees with the Secretary that the

DGC had no obligation to show that Rich "was literally the

best person for the job" on the Seneca but rather needed to

show only that the assignments "serve[d] the needs of the

service." The DGC clearly met this lower standard. Consider: There was an opening in Alaska, Cornejo wanted it,

Lozowski did not, and Cornejo was already in Alaska so

moving him would be inexpensive. See DGC Dec. at 6. The

Seneca needed a CWO but could not accommodate a woman.

See id. at 6-7. Rich agreed to transfer to the Seneca at no

cost to the Coast Guard, thereby opening up his slot on the

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 7 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Thetis. See id. at 6. In these circumstances, the decision to

assign Lozowski to the Thetis seems perfectly reasonable as a

way of meeting the needs of the service.

2. Double-billeting

The district court also questioned the DGC's explanation

why the Coast Guard was willing to double-billet Cornejo but

not Lozowski. Lozowski II, No. 98-0922 at 10-12. The DGC

explained that there was no "downside" to double-billeting

Cornejo in Alaska while there were two "downsides" to

double-billeting Lozowski in D.C.: (1) the Coast Guard would

be allowing Lozowski to avoid an assignment due to a depressed housing market; and (2) the Coast Guard would have

to fill the position on the Seneca with CWO Smith, the next

person on the list, who unlike Lozowski and Rich, did not

have the desired storekeeper background. DGC Dec. at 9.

We think the DGC's explanation, though cursory, is adequate. The district court appears to have accepted that

Lozowski's desire to avoid a loss on the sale of her home was

an "invalid" reason to double-billet her in D.C. Lozowski II,

No. 98-0922 at 11. We agree; the Coast Guard could reasonably conclude that accepting this reason would open itself to

numerous similar requests whenever and wherever the housing market is depressed, making it difficult to fill many

assignments.

The district court explained its disagreement with the DGC

as follows: "It makes little sense to deem that a prior

preference [namely, Lozowski's preference to stay in D.C. for

unstated reasons] cannot be accommodated because a new,

invalid, reason for sustaining the preference [Lozowski's desire to avoid selling her home at a loss] arose subsequently."

Id. The DGC, however, did not say that Lozowski's subsequent preference in any way diminished the validity of her

prior preference. Instead, the DGC held that the decision to

assign Lozowski to the Thetis in spite of her preference for

staying in D.C. (at that time for no stated reason) was

reasonable, see DGC Dec. at 8, and that Lozowski's subsequent reason for wanting to remain in D.C. -- to avoid losing

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 8 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

money upon the sale of her home -- did nothing to alter that

balance, see id. at 9.

In any event, it is apparent to us that the decision to

double-billet Cornejo but not Lozowski was a reasonable one.

Assigning Cornejo to Alaska meant Lozowski did not have to

be transferred there, her least preferred location. The DGC

in her decision noted Lozowski's desire not to go to Alaska,

id. at 7, and Gray had said that this was one reason he

thought Lozowski was well-suited for the Seneca. Thus,

double-billeting Cornejo enabled the Coast Guard to accommodate both his preference and Lozowski's, while doublebilleting Lozowski would have accommodated only her preference.

Similarly, the Coast Guard's desire to assign Lozowski to

either the Seneca or the Thetis because she had a storekeeper background was a reasonable ground for not doublebilleting her in D.C. The district court's reasoning -- that

the subsequent assignment to the Seneca of Smith, who had a

food service background, shows that Lozowski's storekeeper

background played no role in Gray's initial decision to assign

Cornejo to Alaska and Lozowski to the Seneca -- is not

persuasive. See Lozowski II, No. 98-0922 at 12. Because a

CWO's background is merely one factor in an assignment

decision, the assignment of a CWO with one kind of background does not mean that a different kind of background

was not preferred. Consequently, we conclude that both the

DGC's explanations for not double-billeting Lozowski in D.C.

were reasonable.

B. Lozowski's Alternative Grounds

Lozowski contends principally that the judgment of the

district court can be upheld on the alternative ground that the

DGC arbitrarily and capriciously ignored the Coast Guard's

having violated two of its own regulations in assigning her to

the Thetis. Lozowski also presents a hodgepodge of other

grievances, none of which has any merit.

1. Consideration of gender

Lozowski argues that in making the relevant assignments

the Coast Guard violated Article 1-B-3 of the Military Civil

Rights Manual (MCRM), which prohibits "discrimination on

the basis of ... sex." She contends that Gray assigned her

to the Thetis because the Commanding Officer (CO) of the

Thetis wanted a female CWO and because Gray felt he had to

assign one. Lozowski implies that the Coast Guard wanted

her to serve as a "role model, mentor or leader" for women

on the Thetis.

In response, the Secretary correctly notes that Lozowski

failed to raise before the Board the argument that she was

assigned to the Thetis because that ship's CO wanted a

woman assigned. Indeed, in her brief to the Board Lozowski

never even mentioned the provision of the MCRM upon which

she now relies. Rather, Lozowski argued principally that her

assignment "disregarded the normal process of working down

the [CWO] promotion list." The closest she came to her

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 9 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

present argument was to claim that the Coast Guard disregarded Article 4.A.7.a.3 of its Personnel Manual, which says

"women will not be arbitrarily denied an assignment solely

because of lack of a second woman." Specifically, Lozowski

argued that the Coast Guard had violated this provision by

assigning her to the Thetis in order to "provide a companion

for the new proposed female ensign," an argument Lozowski

has since abandoned.

Absent exceptional circumstances, Lozowski cannot rely in

court upon an argument not made to the Board. See Flynn

v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service, 269 F.3d 1064,

1068-69 (D.C. Cir. 2001), in which this court instanced the

following types of exceptional circumstances: "cases involving

uncertainty in the law; novel, important, and recurring questions of federal law; intervening change in the law; and

extraordinary situations with the potential for miscarriages of

justice." Id. at 1069. Because Lozowski's claim does not fall

within any of these categories and she does not offer any

other compelling reason for doing so, we decline to consider

the argument she failed to present to the Board. In any

event, it is difficult to see how the DGC could have acted

arbitrarily or capriciously in failing to address an argument

never presented to her.

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 10 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

Lozowski also claims on appeal that the Coast Guard's

"disparate treatment" of Rich and Cornejo on the one hand

and of herself on the other violated the anti-discrimination

provision of the MCRM. Again, however, Lozowski never

raised the MCRM before the Board. Furthermore, this claim

was rejected by the DGC because there was no evidence that

any favoritism shown Rich and Cornejo was motivated by

their gender. See DGC Dec. at 9. On appeal Lozowski

points us to no such evidence that was overlooked by the

DGC. Consequently, we cannot affirm the judgment of the

district court on the ground that the assignment decision was

contrary to Article 1-B-3 of the MCRM.

2. Deviation from sequential appointment

Lozowski argues that by failing to assign Cornejo to the

Seneca the Coast Guard violated Article 1-D-9.a of its Personnel Manual, which states: "Candidates recommended for

appointment are listed by the selection board in order of their

final scores on eligibility lists. The eligibility lists establish

the precedence of candidates in each specialty." In response,

the Secretary argues that the regulation requires only that

candidates be promoted in rank order, not that each be

"appointed to the specific vacancy that opened the door for

his or her promotion," which would not necessarily serve the

needs of the service. Thus the Coast Guard could assign

Cornejo to Alaska rather than to the Seneca as long as it did

not promote him out of order, that is, after Lozowski.

We conclude the DGC reasonably determined that the

Coast Guard did not violate any regulation by assigning

Cornejo to Alaska and not to the Seneca. See DGC Dec. at 5.

Article 1-D-9.a of the Personnel Manual and the Declarations

of CWOs Prohaska and Gray all support the Secretary's

position that the Coast Guard could permissibly assign Cornejo to Alaska as long as he was not promoted after Lozowski,

and the declarations support the Secretary's assertion that in

fact Cornejo was not promoted after Lozowski.

3. Other grievances

Lozowski presents a list of miscellaneous grievances, none

of which has merit. First, she argues that it was unfair to

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 11 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

assign her to the Thetis on the ground that she had not

previously had sea duty. There is no evidence, however, that

this is why the Coast Guard assigned her to the Thetis.

Nowhere did Gray give that as a reason and the DGC merely

observed that it was not unreasonable to assign her to the

Thetis because, among other things, she had not previously

had sea duty. See DGC Dec. at 8.

Second, Lozowski argues that her storekeeper background

and Cornejo's food service background were used as a pretext

for not assigning Cornejo to the Seneca. For evidence of this

she points to the eventual assignment to the Seneca of CWO

Smith (who had a food service background). As the Secretary explains, however, having a storekeeper background was

a preference for assignment to the Seneca, not a requirement.

Third, Lozowski argues that it was unfair for the DGC to

fault her for not seeking special consideration in light of her

desire to be near her disabled mother in Boston when Rich,

the CWO on the Thetis, was not required to apply for special

consideration in order to express his preference for transferring to New England to be near his family. As the Secretary

points out, Rich, unlike Lozowski, made his preferences

known to Gray before, not after, the assignment decision was

made.

Fourth, Lozowski argues that she should have been assigned to a CWO position at the Telecommunication and

Information Systems Command where she was already working. The Secretary contends that this position opened up and

was filled several months before Lozowski was eligible for

promotion. That the opening in D.C. came available and was

filled before Lozowski was eligible for promotion finds support in Declarations of CWOs Lineberry and Doster.

Fifth, Lozowski complains that her assignment to the Thetis was irregular in that the vacancy on the Thetis existed

only because Rich was going to be transferred to the Seneca.

Lozowski fails to point to any legal error or injustice in this

arrangement, however; the DGC's conclusion that new vacancies need not be filled with new CWOs from the promotion

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 12 of 13
<<The pagination in this PDF may not match the actual pagination in the printed slip opinion>>

list, DGC Dec. at 5, finds support in the Declarations of

CWOs Prohaska and Gray.

Finally, Lozowski argues that events subsequent to her

declining the assignment -- Rich stayed on the Thetis, no

female CWO or ensign was assigned to the Thetis, and a

CWO with food service background was sent to the Seneca --

show that her and the related assignments did not further the

needs of the service. On the contrary, that Rich did not go to

the Seneca tends to show that the arrangement was not

designed to do him a favor; that no woman was assigned to

the Thetis casts doubt upon the idea that the CO of the

Thetis demanded a woman; that the ensign was not assigned

to the Thetis suggests, if anything, that the ensign was to be

Lozowski's companion, not vice versa; and that Smith was

assigned to the Seneca, as already discussed, signifies nothing.

III. Conclusion

The DGC's decision that the Coast Guard's assignment of

Lozowski to the Thetis was neither erroneous nor unjust

withstands the deferential review we must give it. The

judgment of the district court is, therefore,

Reversed.

USCA Case #01-5010 Document #683587 Filed: 06/14/2002 Page 13 of 13