UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

FRANCINE ROBERTS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
                                                                        No. 99-1262
RODNEY SLATER, SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CA-98-736)

Submitted: August 24, 1999

Decided: September 20, 1999

Before WIDENER, WILKINS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Terrell N. Roberts, III, ROBERTS & WOOD, Riverdale, Maryland,
for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Rachel C. Bal-
low, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Francine Roberts appeals from the district court's decision
granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant Rodney Slater,
Secretary of Transportation, on her claim of sexual harassment. The
court ruled that there were no material facts in dispute with respect
to whether the conduct at issue amounted to harassment and whether
Roberts's employer provided an effective remedy. We agree with the
court's ruling on the latter issue; accordingly, we do not reach the first
issue, and we affirm.

The record indicates that Roberts's co-worker subjected her to
inappropriate comments and gestures over a period of three months,
with the misconduct increasing in intensity over that period. When
she and other victims of the same co-worker advised their supervisor
of his conduct, the co-worker was reprimanded and transferred to
another location, thus depriving him of the opportunity to continue
mistreating Roberts. This remedy stopped the improper conduct and
therefore was sufficient as a matter of law. See Spicer v. Virginia
Dep't of Corrections, 66 F.3d 705, 711 (4th Cir. 1995); cf. Burlington
Indus., Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S. Ct. 2257, 2270-71 (1998). Thus, the
grant of summary judgment in favor of the Defendant was proper. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argu-
ment would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     2
