UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ANNE W. NORLOFF, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Defendant-Appellee, CLARENCE H. CARTER, in his official and individual capacities, No. 98-1478 Department of Social Services; VINCENT J. JORDAN, in his official and individual capacities, Department of Social Services; HAROLD G. HOBSON, in his official and individual capacities, Department of Social Services, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Chief District Judge. (CA-97-980-A) Argued: December 2, 1998 Decided: February 22, 1999 Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL ARGUED: Michael L. Waldman, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON, Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Bradley Brent Cavedo, SHUFORD, RUBIN & GIBNEY, P.A., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Jay D. Majors, David B. Wise- man, FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER & JACOBSON, Wash- ington, D.C., for Appellant. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Anne Norloff appeals the district court's grant of summary judg- ment in favor of the defendants on her Title VII and Equal Protection claims. We affirm. Norloff worked as special counsel for the Division of Child Sup- port Enforcement (DCSE) of the Virginia Department of Social Ser- vices (DSS). She prosecuted child support cases out of the DCSE's Fairfax, Virginia, office. Wayne Edwards was a court specialist, or paralegal, in the same office. Norloff is white, and Edwards is African American. On October 31, 1995, while working on a case together, Norloff and Edwards had a disagreement that culminated in what Norloff characterizes as a "verbal assault" by Edwards. Fallout from the inci- dent was significant. Norloff filed a formal report concluding that Edwards' "rigidity and assaultive behavior make it impossible for me to represent DCSE's interests effectively." One week later, Edwards was taken off cases that Norloff was handling. Edwards objected to the reassignment. On November 8, 1995, he filed a grievance with the DSS alleging race discrimination. In fleshing out the details of his 2 grievance, Edwards told investigators that Norloff had made "inap- propriate comments of a sexual nature" to him. The DCSE treated these allegations as a sexual harassment complaint, and in December 1995 the DCSE began investigating this complaint. Norloff contends that Harold Hobson, a DSS Employee Relations Manager, conducted an unnecessarily probing and protracted inquiry into Edwards' harassment claim against her. She alleges that Hobson investigated not only her office conduct, which might have been rele- vant to Edwards' harassment charge, but also her private life. She also complains that although investigators concluded after seven months of investigation that Edwards' allegations could not be proved or dis- proved, they nonetheless recommended she be given a formal warn- ing regarding her future conduct around the office. One more detail is important. While his harassment claim against Norloff was being investigated, Edwards was reassigned to Arlington cases. When Norloff learned of this, she told her supervisor that she could not work with Edwards. In response, the supervisor assigned Norloff to work on Fairfax County cases. Subsequently, Norloff suf- fered severe depression, developed a debilitating kidney infection, and left the DCSE. Norloff makes several claims under Title VII. She alleges that her transfer from Arlington cases to Fairfax cases amounts to disparate treatment because of her race and gender. In the alternative, she claims that the transfer was a constructive discharge. She alleges that the Commonwealth created a sexually hostile work environment by conducting a baseless, improper, and biased investigation into her personal life. Finally, she alleges an Equal Protection violation. The district court rejected each of these claims. It concluded that Norloff's transfer from Arlington to Fairfax cases was not an adverse employment action under Title VII because Norloff retained "the same kind of job, the same rank, the same pay, the same responsibili- ties, and the same offices." It concluded that the investigation did not constitute the frequent, severe, physically threatening or psychologi- cally humiliating activity necessary to sustain a hostile work environ- ment claim. It concluded that Norloff's working conditions were not 3 so intolerable as to permit a finding of constructive discharge. Finally, it dismissed the Equal Protection claim. After considering the joint appendix, the briefs of the parties, and the arguments of counsel, we affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See Norloff v. Virginia, No. CA-97-980-A (E.D. Va. Feb. 10, 1998). AFFIRMED 4