UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LESLIE A. FRANCIS, JR.,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

No. 98-2801

COMPUTER LEARNING CENTERS,

INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge.

(CA-98-1408-A)

Submitted: October 14, 1999

Decided: October 27, 1999

Before ERVIN,* HAMILTON, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Jonathan Shapiro, Alexandria, Virginia; Christopher G. Hoge,

CROWLEY, HOGE & FEIN, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant.

Burton J. Fishman, Jill I. Prater, TUCKER FLYER, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

*Judge Ervin was assigned to the panel in this case but died prior to

the time the decision was filed. The decision is filed by a quorum of the

panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Leslie A. Francis, Jr., appeals from the district court's order dismissing his wrongful discharge action against Computer Learning

Centers, Inc. ("CLC"), under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Finding no

reversible error, we affirm.

Francis filed a wrongful discharge action in Virginia state court,

alleging that he was terminated because he refused to participate in

illegal and fraudulent activities being carried out by CLC and that he

was asked to contribute $1000 to the re-election campaign of Newt

Gingrich and then submit to the company for a bogus reimbursement

of that amount. CLC removed the action to federal court, based on

diversity jurisdiction, and moved to dismiss the complaint. In opposing the motion, Francis contended that his discharge violated Virginia

public policy as embodied in the Virginia Consumer Protection Act

("Act"), Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-196 to -207 (Michie 1998), and certain regulations of the State Council of Higher Education for Virginia

enacted pursuant to Va. Code Ann. § 23-268 (Michie 1997).

After a hearing, the district court determined that it need not decide

whether the Act and the regulations were adequate bases for satisfying the public-policy exception to the employment-at-will doctrine.

The court found that even if they were, Francis did not fall within the

"zone of interests that the relevant [statute and regulations] set out to

protect." (J.A. at 81). The court therefore granted CLC's motion to

dismiss.

On appeal, Francis argues that the requirement that a plaintiff be

within the zone of protection of the particular public policies on

which he relies to satisfy the exception is overly restrictive and inconsistent with Virginia case law. We disagree. The Supreme Court of

Virginia recently held that a plaintiff claiming wrongful discharge and

 2
seeking to avail himself of the public-policy exception to the

employment-at-will doctrine must fall within the protective reach of

the statutes or regulations the plaintiff claims are violated by his termination. See Dray v. New Mkt. Poultry Prods., Inc., 528 S.E.2d 312

(Va. 1999). Accordingly, after careful review of the record in this

case, the applicable legal authorities, and the briefs of the parties, we

affirm the decision to grant CLC's motion to dismiss on the reasoning

of the district court. We grant CLC's motion to submit the case on

briefs 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