UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS AARON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. No. 96-1815

EMC CORPORATION,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.

Albert V. Bryan, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-95-1369-A)

Argued: May 5, 1997

Decided: June 23, 1997

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, and RUSSELL and

WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: David Payne Sutton, Sr., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Michele A. Whitham, FOLEY, HOAG & ELIOT, L.L.P., Boston, Massachusetts, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Arthur G. Telegen,

Amy B.G. Katz, FOLEY, HOAG & ELIOT, L.L.P., Boston, Massachusetts; Robert R. Vieth, MCGUIRE, WOODS, BATTLE &

BOOTH, L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, for Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Aaron appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of his former employer, EMC Corp. Aaron had sued

EMC, claiming that EMC's refusal to allow him to exercise certain

stock options, offered as an incentive to its employees, was a breach

of contract.

We review a grant of summary judgment de novo .1 A district court

should grant summary judgment only when there are no genuine

issues of material fact in dispute, and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.2

When Aaron was hired in 1991, he was granted incentive stock

options of 5,000 shares of EMC stock. Those options gave Aaron the

right to purchase 1,000 shares per year, once a year, for five successive years, starting in January 1992. In June 1993, EMC decided to

terminate Aaron. It asked him to remain with the company until his

replacement could be hired and trained. Aaron stayed with the company until October 29, 1993. Aaron claimed the right to exercise the

1,000 options that vested in January 1994. He argues on appeal, as he

did below, that language in EMC's Stock Option Plan permitted him

to exercise his incentive stock options for up to three months following his termination.

The document granting Aaron incentive stock options stated that

they were subject to the provisions of EMC's 1985 Stock Option Plan

(the Plan). The Plan included the following provision regarding an

employee's termination:

_________________________________________________________________

1 Mitchell v. Rice, 954 F.2d 187, 190 (4th Cir. 1992).

2 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986).

 2
Termination of Employment. If the employment of a Participant terminates for any reason other than his death, all

options held by the Participant shall thereupon expire on

the date of the termination unless the option by its terms, or

the Committee by resolution, shall allow the Participant to

exercise any or all of the options held by him after termination. In the case of an Incentive Stock Option, the Incentive

Stock Option shall in any event expire at the end of three

months after such termination of employment. . . .

(emphasis added).

Aaron contended that he had an unfettered right to exercise his

incentive options within three months of his termination. However,

the district court found no ambiguity in the Plan, and that the plain

language of the agreement indicated that upon termination of employment, the option expired, unless the option itself or the Committee

extended it. Because the district court found there was no evidence in

the record suggesting that the option or the Committee extended

Aaron's option beyond the date of his termination, it granted EMC's

motion for summary judgment.

Furthermore, the Plan included a provision that vested full authority in the Committee to interpret the terms and conditions of the Plan.

Evidence presented by EMC included an affidavit of Brian

O'Connell, Vice-President of Human Resources for EMC. O'Connell

stated that "EMC consistently interprets [the Termination of Employment provision of the Plan] to require the expiration of all outstanding

stock options of a terminated employee at 12:00 midnight on the date

of his or her termination of employment from EMC." Aaron failed to

present any evidence suggesting that EMC had ever interpreted the

plan differently.

Having carefully reviewed the record, briefs and the contentions of

the parties at oral argument, we find no error in the decision of the

court below. Accordingly, the judgment below is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

 3