UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

ANDREW BRADICK,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

GRUMMAN DATA SYSTEMS
CORPORATION,                                                           No. 95-2636
Defendant-Appellee,

and

NORTHROP GRUMMAN CORPORATION,
Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, District Judge.
(CA-95-620)

Argued: September 23, 1996

Decided: June 27, 1997

Before HALL, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Reversed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: John Michael Bredehoft, CHARLSON & BREDEHOFT,
P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. James Joseph Kelley, II, MOR-
GAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Elaine C. Bredehoft, Linda M. Jackson, CHARLSON &
BREDEHOFT, P.C., Reston, Virginia, for Appellant. Nancy R. Kuhn,
Fred B. Jacob, MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS, L.L.P., Washing-
ton, D.C., for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Bradick alleges that his former employer, Grumman Data
Systems, discharged him in violation of the common law of Virginia.
The district court granted judgment on the pleadings to the employer.
On Bradick's appeal, we certified the following question of law to the
Supreme Court of Virginia:

           Does the common law of Virginia provide a wrongful dis-
          charge remedy to an employee of an employer covered by
          the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.,
          where the employee is discharged on account of his disabil-
          ity or the employer's perception of his disability?

The Supreme Court of Virginia, in its discretion, accepted the certi-
fied question, and, on June 6, 1997, the Court answered it in the affir-
mative. Consequently, we now reverse the judgment of the district
court for the reasons given by the Virginia Supreme Court in its opin-
ion. Bradick v. Grumman Data Systems Corp., ___ Va. ___, ___
S.E.2d ___ (1997) (No. 962531). The case is remanded for such fur-
ther proceedings as may be necessary.

REVERSED AND REMANDED

                    2
