UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HATTIE FOSTER DAVIDSON, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 97-1312 WILLIAM J. PERRY, Secretary, Department of Defense (Office of Dependents Education), Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, District Judge. (CA-96-637-A) Submitted: December 9, 1997 Decided: January 14, 1998 Before HALL, WILKINS, and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Sidney L. Gold, LOVITZ & GOLD, P.C., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Drewery B. Hutcheson, Jr., Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Jeri Kaylene Somers, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION
PER CURIAM:Hattie Foster Davidson appeals from the district court's order, following a bench trial, finding in favor of the Defendant on Davidson's complaint filed pursuant to the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29U.S.C.A. §§ 701-797b (West 1985 & Supp. 1997), and its order denying her motion for a new trial. She asserts that the district court erred by finding that she did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was illegally discriminated against because of her disability. Finding no error, we affirm. Davidson, who has asthma, worked as a special education teacher in the Department of Defense school system in Germany from 1978 until she was terminated in 1994. Beginning in the fall of 1992, other teachers and parents advised sc hool officials that they had concernsabout Davidson's performance. Despite counseling sessions and assistance from teachers and administrators, Davidson's performance failed to improve, and she received an unsatisfactory performance appraisal. Davidson continued to receive c ounseling and assistance during the summer of 1993 and 1993-94 school year. However, she still failed to meet the standards in two critical performance areas. Davidson and school officials r eached an agreement in January 1994 in which Davidson was given a new first-line supervisor and placed on a probationary status for forty-five days. Officials eventuallyextended the probationary period for another thirty days, but Davidson still failed to perform in a satisfactory manner. According to the terms of the agreement, Davidson was terminated in the summer of 1994. At no point did Davidson attribute her poor performance to asthma. To establish a prima facie case of discrimination, Davidson mustprove: (1) that she has a disability; (2) that she was otherwise qualified for the position; and (3) that the Defendant discharged her solely
2because of the disability. See Shafer v. Preston Mem'l Hosp. Corp. , 107 F.3d 274, 276 (4th Cir. 1997). The district court found that Davidson was disabled due to her asthma, but it found that she failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that she was otherwise qualified for the position or that her disability was the sole reason for her discharge. We find that the district court's decision is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. An "otherwise qualified individual" is defined as someone with a disability who can perform the essential functions of the job with or without reasonable accommodation. See29 C.F.R. § 1614.203(a)(6) (1997). The overwhelming evidence at trial showed that Davidson could not satisfy this element. Despite numerous counseling sessions and extensive assistance from other teachers and sc hool officials, she was unable to meet the objective standards in one critical performancearea. Parents also registered complaints concerning the quality of education their children were receiving. As a result, the record s upports the court's finding that Davidson was not "otherwise qualified" for the position.The weight of the evidence also supports the finding that Defendant did not discharge Davidson solely because of her disability. Since the record shows that Davidson did not inform school officials that her poor performance was related to her asthma, the district courtproperly found that Davidson was discharged due to poor job performance and not her disability. In fact, several witnesses testified that they did not know Davidson even suffered from asthma. We therefore affirm the district court's order. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
3