UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ANNE W. NORLOFF,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

Defendant-Appellee,

CLARENCE H. CARTER, in his official

and individual capacities,

No. 98-1478

Department of Social Services;

VINCENT J. JORDAN, in his official

and individual capacities,

Department of Social Services;

HAROLD G. HOBSON, in his official

and individual capacities,

Department of Social Services,

Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.

(CA-97-980-A)

Argued: December 2, 1998

Decided: February 22, 1999

Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL

ARGUED: Michael L. Waldman, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS,

SHRIVER & JACOBSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Bradley

Brent Cavedo, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, P.A., Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jay D. Majors, David B. Wiseman, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Anne Norloff appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on her Title VII and Equal Protection

claims. We affirm.

Norloff worked as special counsel for the Division of Child Support Enforcement (DCSE) of the Virginia Department of Social Services (DSS). She prosecuted child support cases out of the DCSE's

Fairfax, Virginia, office. Wayne Edwards was a court specialist, or

paralegal, in the same office. Norloff is white, and Edwards is African

American.

On October 31, 1995, while working on a case together, Norloff

and Edwards had a disagreement that culminated in what Norloff

characterizes as a "verbal assault" by Edwards. Fallout from the incident was significant. Norloff filed a formal report concluding that

Edwards' "rigidity and assaultive behavior make it impossible for me

to represent DCSE's interests effectively." One week later, Edwards

was taken off cases that Norloff was handling. Edwards objected to

the reassignment. On November 8, 1995, he filed a grievance with the

DSS alleging race discrimination. In fleshing out the details of his

 2
grievance, Edwards told investigators that Norloff had made "inappropriate comments of a sexual nature" to him. The DCSE treated

these allegations as a sexual harassment complaint, and in December

1995 the DCSE began investigating this complaint.

Norloff contends that Harold Hobson, a DSS Employee Relations

Manager, conducted an unnecessarily probing and protracted inquiry

into Edwards' harassment claim against her. She alleges that Hobson

investigated not only her office conduct, which might have been relevant to Edwards' harassment charge, but also her private life. She also

complains that although investigators concluded after seven months

of investigation that Edwards' allegations could not be proved or disproved, they nonetheless recommended she be given a formal warning regarding her future conduct around the office.

One more detail is important. While his harassment claim against

Norloff was being investigated, Edwards was reassigned to Arlington

cases. When Norloff learned of this, she told her supervisor that she

could not work with Edwards. In response, the supervisor assigned

Norloff to work on Fairfax County cases. Subsequently, Norloff suffered severe depression, developed a debilitating kidney infection,

and left the DCSE.

Norloff makes several claims under Title VII. She alleges that her

transfer from Arlington cases to Fairfax cases amounts to disparate

treatment because of her race and gender. In the alternative, she

claims that the transfer was a constructive discharge. She alleges that

the Commonwealth created a sexually hostile work environment by

conducting a baseless, improper, and biased investigation into her

personal life. Finally, she alleges an Equal Protection violation.

The district court rejected each of these claims. It concluded that

Norloff's transfer from Arlington to Fairfax cases was not an adverse

employment action under Title VII because Norloff retained "the

same kind of job, the same rank, the same pay, the same responsibilities, and the same offices." It concluded that the investigation did not

constitute the frequent, severe, physically threatening or psychologically humiliating activity necessary to sustain a hostile work environment claim. It concluded that Norloff's working conditions were not

 3
so intolerable as to permit a finding of constructive discharge. Finally,

it dismissed the Equal Protection claim.

After considering the joint appendix, the briefs of the parties, and

the arguments of counsel, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of

the district court. See Norloff v. Virginia, No. CA-97-980-A (E.D. Va.

Feb. 10, 1998).

AFFIRMED

 4