UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BARBARA COOPER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.                                                               No. 97-1901

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INCORPORATED,
Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge.
(CA-96-1838-A)

Argued: April 7, 1998

Decided: May 26, 1998

Before ERVIN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and
G. ROSS ANDERSON, JR., United States District Judge for the
District of South Carolina, sitting by designation.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

ARGUED: Eric Steele, THE LAW OFFICE OF ERIC STEELE,
Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Weyman Thompson Johnson, Jr.,
PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, L.L.P., Atlanta,
Georgia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Melvina C. Ford, THE LAW
OFFICES OF MELVINA C. FORD, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-
lant. Stephanie A. Bohm, PAUL, HASTINGS, JANOFSKY &
WALKER, L.L.P., Atlanta, Georgia; Jenny C. Wu, PAUL, HAS-
TINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for
Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Barbara Cooper appeals an order of the district court dismissing her
claims of racial discrimination by her employer, American Airlines,
Inc. (American). See 42 U.S.C.A. § 2000e-2(a) (West 1994). Finding
no error, we affirm.

I.

Cooper has been employed by American as a flight attendant since
1989. In October 1992, Cooper began wearing her hair in multiple
small braids. She subsequently was informed by her supervisor that
the braids violated American's grooming policy, which then prohib-
ited "hairstyles consisting completely of braids." J.A. 20 (internal
quotation marks omitted). Cooper removed the braids.

After exhausting her administrative remedies, Cooper filed this
action in federal district court maintaining that the grooming policy
prohibiting braids and a revised policy adopted in 1993* were racially
discriminatory in that they disparately impacted black female employ-
ees, who were more likely for cultural reasons to wear their hair in
braids. Cooper also raised a claim of disparate treatment, alleging that
_________________________________________________________________
*The revised policy permitted "fully or partially braided hairstyles,
without beads or trim" so long as any loose braids were "secured to the
head or at the nape of the neck." J.A. 21 (internal quotation marks omit-
ted).

                    2
she had been verbally reprimanded for violating the grooming policy,
while white employees who violated the policy were not reprimanded.

The district court dismissed the action for failure to state a claim
upon which relief could be granted, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), rea-
soning that Cooper's challenge to the grooming policy in effect prior
to August 1993 was moot; that the grooming policy adopted in
August 1993 did not constitute an unlawful employment practice; and
that Cooper had failed to allege a cognizable claim for disparate treat-
ment.

II.

After reviewing the parties' briefs and the applicable law, and hav-
ing had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district
court correctly dismissed Cooper's complaint. Accordingly, we
affirm.

AFFIRMED

                    3