UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ANDREA L. MANCUSO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 96-2859 GUEST SERVICES, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-96-512-A) Argued: June 4, 1997 Decided: August 19, 1997 Before RUSSELL and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and TILLEY, United States District Judge for the Middle District of North Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: John Michael Bredehoft, CHARLSON & BREDEHOFT, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Carol Connor Flowe, ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Elaine C. Bredehoft, Linda M. Jackson, CHARLSON & BREDEHOFT, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Stephen B. Forman, Deborah L. Hirsch, ARENT, FOX, KINTNER, PLOTKIN & KAHN, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.Unpublished opinions are not binding pr ecedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Andrea Mancuso sued her employer, Guest Services International ("G.S.I.") for sexual harassment, retaliatory discharge and related state-law claims. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of G.S.I., and Mancuso appeals. During her entire three-month tenure as an internal auditor with G.S.I., Mancuso worked closely with her supervisor, Andy Anderson. Their jobs required them to take business trips together to various resort properties and national parks where G.S.I. operated businesses. Mancuso alleges that during these trips and at other times, Andersonmade improper sexually suggestive remarks, and on at least two occasions touched her inappropriately. During the last touching incident, Mancuso strongly rebuffed Anderson. One week later, Anderson arranged a meeting between himself, Mancuso and Holly Burke, G.S.I.'s personnel manager. Burke counseled Mancuso concerning the length of her skirts and her attitude towards her coworkers. The next day, Anderson informed Mancuso that Burke and G.S.I.'s upper management had decided to terminate her because of her inappropriate dress, her ins ubordination, and her interaction with Burke the day before. On June 8, 1995, two days afterher termination, Mancuso met withBurke and Willie Rodriguez, Anderson's supervisor, to request reinstatement and complain about Anderson's inappropriate touching and comments. This was the first time Mancuso informed anyone at G.S.I. about her problems with Anderson. G.S.I. declined to reinstate Mancuso, and she filed the instant lawsuit. On G.S.I.'s motion for summary judgment, the district court found that Mancuso's allegations did not create a sufficiently hostile envi-
2ronment on which to base a Title VII claim.* The district court alsofound that Anderson did not make the decision to fire Mancuso. Furthermore, the district court found that b ecause Mancuso did not complain about Anderson's behavior until after her firing, her firing couldnot have been in retaliation for her complaint. In response to Mancuso's assertion that her firing was in retaliation for rebuffing Anderson's advances, the district court noted that Mancuso offered noevidence that Anderson orchestrated her firing. Based on these findings, the district court ruled that Mancuso's Title VII claims could not withstand summary judgment. Mancuso also asserted two state law claims. The district courtrejected her claim that her termination violated Virginia's public policy. Virginia requires a plaintiff to have a viable Title VII action to pursue this type of state claim. Because the district court rejected Mancuso's Title VII claims, it also rejected this state law claim. Finally, the district court ruled that Mancuso's state law claim against G.S.I. for intentional infliction of emotional distress failed because Mancuso did not allege c onduct that was"extreme and outrageous." We have reviewed the record, the parties' briefs and heard oral argument in this case. We find no error by the district court, and affirm its judgment based on the reasoning found in its Memorandum Opinion in this matter.
AFFIRMED

_________________________________________________________________ *See 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000e to 2000e-5 (West 1994 & Supp. 1997) (prohibiting sexual harassment and giving private cause of action to harassment victims).
3