UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

STEVEN A. KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                   No. 95-2528
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
CORPORATION,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CA-95-271-A)

Argued: May 9, 1996

Decided: June 19, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Jack L. Gould, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Anthony
Herman, COVINGTON & BURLING, Washington, D.C., for Appel-
lee. ON BRIEF: Eric Lasker, COVINGTON & BURLING, Wash-
ington, D.C.; Melinda Hunkins, IBM CORPORATION, Bethesda,
Maryland, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Steven A. King appeals a ruling of the district court
granting summary judgment to Appellee International Business
Machines Corporation (IBM) on King's various claims related to an
alleged promise of employment by IBM. Finding no error, we affirm.

King was a longtime, at-will employee of IBM's Federal Systems
Company division (FSC) in Manassas, Virginia. In 1991, King
accepted a temporary, international assignment to FSC's Merlin Pro-
gram in England. Before accepting the international assignment, King
attended a briefing, during which he was informed that he would be
re-entered into IBM's domestic workforce at the conclusion of his
international assignment and that a "career manager" would be desig-
nated to assist him with the re-entry process. After he began work in
England, King signed an "international assignment letter" that
explained the terms of King's assignment to England. One portion of
the letter addressed the conclusion of King's international assignment:

          International assignments are temporary in nature. The
          length of your assignment is based on present business
          requirements and is subject to change at the discretion of
          IBM. You are expected to re-enter your home country at the
          completion of your assignment or any extension.

(J.A. at 206 (emphasis added).)

While King was in England, IBM sold FSC to another company,
Loral. Pursuant to its agreement with IBM, Loral offered employment
to King and all other FSC employees under the same terms those
employees had enjoyed with IBM. Although IBM informed King that

                    2
it would not employ him upon his return from England, King never-
theless declined the offer of employment with Loral.*

King then brought the instant action, alleging breach of contract,
fraud, and civil conspiracy. All of these claims are dependent on the
validity of King's assertion that IBM's oral and written representa-
tions that it "expected" to re-employ King upon the completion of his
international assignment constituted a contract that bound IBM to
offer King employment when he declined Loral's offer of employ-
ment. After a hearing on IBM's summary judgment motion, the dis-
trict court concluded that IBM had not made a promise of
employment. Having had the benefit of oral argument and the parties'
briefs, and after careful consideration of the record and applicable
law, we conclude that the district court correctly determined that IBM
made no promise of employment to King. Accordingly, we affirm.

AFFIRMED
_________________________________________________________________
*Pursuant to the terms of the international assignment letter, IBM paid
to transport King, his family, and their belongings back to the United
States.

                    3
