UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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, Anderson

made 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 insubordination,

and her interaction with Burke the day before.

On June 8, 1995, two days after her termination, Mancuso met with

Burke 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-

 2
ronment on which to base a Title VII claim.* The district court also

found that Anderson did not make the decision to fire Mancuso. Furthermore, the district court found that because Mancuso did not complain about Anderson's behavior until after her firing, her firing could

not 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 no

evidence 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 court

rejected 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 conduct 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