UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

LINDA C. TOM,
Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INCORPORATED;
                                                                    No. 99-2292
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, AFL-CIO,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Chief District Judge.
(CA-98-2218-L)

Submitted: June 30, 2000

Decided: August 30, 2000

Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Francis A. Pommett, III, LAW OFFICES OF FRANCIS A. POM-
METT, III, P.C., Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. John J. Gal-
lagher, Kenneth M. Willner, Kimberly M. Zywicki, PAUL,
HASTINGS, JANOFSKY & WALKER, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.,
for Appellees.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Linda C. Tom appeals from the district court's order granting sum-
mary judgment on her Title VII and Age Discrimination in Employ-
ment actions filed against her employer, Northwest Airlines,
Incorporated.* Tom claims that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on her claims of disparate treatment, hostile work
environment, and failure to promote. Based on our review of the
briefs, the record, and the relevant caselaw, we affirm the judgment
of the district court.

This court reviews de novo a district court's grant of summary
judgment, and affirms only if there is no genuine issue of material
fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
See Shaw v. Stroud, 

, 798 (4th Cir. 1994). In order to
avoid summary judgment, however, the nonmoving party must pro-
vide "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 

, 248 (1986) (citation
and internal quotation marks omitted). When there is a complete fail-
ure of proof by the nonmovant on one of the elements of the cause
of action, all other material questions of fact are necessarily rendered
immaterial. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 

, 323 (1986).

We have examined the briefs and the record and find no reversible
error with respect to the district court's grant of summary judgment
on her claim of disparate treatment. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumb-
ing Prods., Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 

, at *6 (U.S.
June 12, 2000) (No. 99-536) (once an employee has established her
prima facie case of discrimination, she must prove that the employer's
_________________________________________________________________
*Tom raises no claims on appeal as to the grant of summary judgment
in favor of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace
Workers, AFL-CIO.

                     2
legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason was "unworthy of credence" or
was otherwise false).

We similarly find that, even assuming that Tom set forth a prima
facie case for a hostile work environment claim based upon the events
included in her 1995 and 1996 administrative charges, the district
court properly granted summary judgment as to these claims. See
Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 

, 788 (1998)
("[I]solated incidents (unless extremely serious) will not amount to
discriminatory changes in the `terms and conditions of employ-
ment.'"). Accordingly, we affirm the court's order granting summary
judgment on these two claims.

We further find that, even assuming Appellant set forth a prima
facie case for discrimination with respect to her promotion claims, the
district court nonetheless properly granted summary judgment as to
these claims. Appellee adduced evidence, in the form of affidavits and
documentary evidence which the district court found to be uncontra-
dicted, to support its claim that the promotion decisions at issue were
made solely on the basis of seniority. Appellant proffered no evidence
from which a trier of fact could find that Appellee's asserted justifica-
tion was false. Accordingly, we affirm the court's order granting sum-
mary judgment on the failure to promote claims.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

                     3