UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RAE-LEE M. LUNA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

LORAL CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee, No. 95-3205

and

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,

INCORPORATED (IBM),

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.

(CA-95-478-A)

Submitted: May 14, 1996

Decided: May 31, 1996

Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

John M. DiJoseph, SATTLER & DIJOSEPH, Arlington, Virginia, for

Appellant. R. Mark Dare, George E. Kostel, HAZEL & THOMAS,

P.C., Falls Church, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Rae-Lee Luna appeals the district court's order granting summary

judgment to the Defendant, Loral Corporation, and dismissing her

employment retaliation action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act

of 1964, as amended, 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2 (West 1994). Luna

alleged that Loral included her in a 1994 reduction in force in

response to a complaint she filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1991.

Our review of the parties' briefs discloses this appeal is without

merit. Luna failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliatory

discharge.1 Luna's retaliation claim fails because she does not show

a causal connection between her filing a complaint with the EEOC

and her discharge. Not only are the events separated by over three

years, but Luna failed to present evidence specifically linking the

events.2

Moreover, even if Luna proved a prima facie case, her claim failed

because she did not show pretext. Loral contended that Luna was discharged because of a general reduction in force necessitated by

Loral's reduced business contracts and that Luna was the bottom rated

employee in her work group. Luna did not dispute the truth of these

non-discriminatory reasons, but claimed that her low ranking was evidence of Loral's retaliation against her. Such a response is insufficient

to establish pretext, as it does not show that Loral's proffered reasons

were false or that Loral intentionally discriminated against her. Con-

_________________________________________________________________

1 Carter v. Ball, 33 F.3d 450, 460 (4th Cir. 1994); Williams v. Cerberonics, Inc., 871 F.2d 452, 457 (4th Cir. 1989); Ross v. Communication Satellite Corp., 759 F.2d 355, 365 (4th Cir. 1985).

2 See Carter, 33 F.3d at 460 (temporal proximity between the protected

activity and the adverse employment decision is element of causality).

 2
sequently, we cannot say that the district court's finding of nondiscrimination was erroneous.

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