Thomas Mason, Jr., Plaintiff-appellant,andregina Kunkel; Gary Riviere, Plaintiffs, v. County of Fairfax, Virginia; Robert J. Doyle; Rajandra H.waghray, Defendants-appellees,andfairfax County Department of Extension & Continuingeducation; Virginia Polytechnic Institute,extension Division; G. Stewart Bunn,defendants.thomas Mason, Jr., Plaintiff-appellee,andregina Kunkel; Gary Riviere, Plaintiffs, v. Fairfax County Department of Extension & Continuingeducation; County of Fairfax, Virginia; Robertj. Doyle; Rajandra H. Waghray; G.stewart Bunn, Defendants-appellants,andvirginia Polytechnic Institute, Virginia Polytechnicinstitute, Extension Division, Defendant, 865 F.2d 1259 (4th Cir. 1988)

Thomas L. Mason, Jr., was discharged by Robert Doyle from a position as an entomologist with the Fairfax County, Virginia, Department of Extension and Continuing Education ("Extension Department"). He then brought an action against Fairfax County, the Extension Department, and named individuals, advancing section 1983 and pendent state claims. He now appeals from the district court's order dismissing some of his claims and directing a verdict on his other claims in favor of Fairfax County, the Extension Department, Robert Doyle (Extension Department Director), Raj Waghray (Senior Extension Agent), and Stewart Bunn (Extension Agent). The individual defendants cross-appeal from the district court's order denying their motion for attorneys' fees.

Mason was a Fairfax County employee in the Extension Department from September 1984 through May 1986. His section 1983 action alleged violations of his due process rights and asserted pendent state claims. The district court initially dismissed the due process and misrepresentation claims against all defendants, and all claims against Fairfax County and the Extension Department. Mason amended his complaint to reassert his due process claim with additional factual allegations. The court again refused to allow Mason to proceed with a due process claim against Fairfax County. In October 1987, at the conclusion of Mason's case, the district court directed a verdict against Mason on all remaining counts. The court then denied the motion of defendants Doyle, Waghray, and Bunn for attorneys' fees. The appeal and the cross-appeal followed.

In the spring of 1984, Raj Waghray, the Senior Extension Agent with the Extension Department, contacted Thomas Mason about a job opening in the Department. At that time, Mason worked for the State of West Virginia as an entomologist focusing on control of the gypsy moth. Mason interviewed for the open position of Gypsy Moth Program Director and decided to take the job. Mason testified that he was disappointed that no gypsy moth program was in place when he arrived for work in September 1984.

In January 1985, Doyle, the Extension Department Director, informed Mason that Mason's orientation was going slower than expected. In that same month, Mason's secretary, Gloria Noble, had cried after an incident in which Mason criticized her typing. In March 1985, Doyle sent Mason a memorandum stating that Mason's job performance was unsatisfactory. Doyle stated that he perceived problems with Mason's management style and with his relations with staff. Mason responded by writing, "Let me make it clear that the points raised by you and your staff are valid." He later testified at trial that he admitted this only because he feared losing his job.

Mason also testified that he worked in the office with Gary Riviere, a black extension agent. Mason said that he believed that Riviere was the target of racial discrimination. He stated that he talked to Doyle about Riviere, but he never explicitly mentioned the discrimination. In October 1985, Mason filed a complaint with the NAACP charging this discrimination. Mason never testified, however, that he informed Doyle or any other Extension Department employee that he had filed such a complaint.

During the spring and summer of 1985, several employees complained about noxious odor from the "Blue Ray" machine used to copy blueprints. Mason testified that he also complained to Doyle about this machine. He stated that Doyle caused that situation to be improved.

In September 1985, Mason received a job performance evaluation of barely satisfactory. Doyle then took over the Gypsy Moth Program from Mason. Mason testified that Doyle was unhappy with Mason's performance and believed that the staff was threatening to quit because of Mason's management style. By this time, Mason's relationship with Doyle "had deteriorated terribly." Mason testified that he was forced to cancel a speaking engagement in Ohio when Doyle required him to complete a written item for work.

In December 1985, Doyle wrote a memorandum to Mason placing Mason on leave with pay. He wrote in part:

This action is being taken because I have a reasonable cause to believe that the retention of your services in an active duty status may result in harm to your fellow workers and yourself. Additionally, I know that your continuation in an active duty status would severely harm the current operations of the Gypsy Moth program and staff.

I have received four (4) complaints about your behavior on December 19, 1985 wherein you lost control of your temper while discussing routine office business with [another employee]. Your loud yelling, emotional tirades (which were described as paranoid type statements of you against everyone else), the loud sound of your fist slamming into a table or desk, and the knowledge by three (3) other employees that you were conducting yourself in a highly unprofessional and unproductive manner was thought to terrify, intimidate, and berate the quiet unassuming young woman in your office.... Your behavior disturbed the office work of the three (3) other individuals in the vicinity of your office even though your door was closed. Your emotional and erratic conversation led those three individuals to the conclusion that they needed to rescue [this employee] from your office in order to protect her from harm. This rescue was accomplished under the guise of an emergency phone call for her and they spirited her out of the office and out of the building for most of the remainder of the day.

Although Mason testified that Doyle gave copies of this memorandum to other employees, he did not identify any persons.

In January 1986, Doyle and an Assistant Fairfax County Attorney met with Mason and his attorney, David Williams, to discuss the matter. At the meeting, Doyle gave Mason another memorandum stating in part:

This is to notify you of my intent to give you an official letter of reprimand, to temporarily reassign you and to perform an immediate Performance Evaluation to determine whether or not to retain you in employment. This action is taken as a direct result of your behavior which emotionally harmed an employee and disrupted and harmed the operations of the Gypsy Moth Program and staff.

Mason testified that this memorandum was "a gross distortion of things." The next day, Doyle wrote another memorandum to Mason, giving Mason three days to respond in the matter, ordering him not to engage in Gypsy Moth Program activities, and telling him that he was not authorized to use the Department's word processing equipment. Four days later, Mason responded to Doyle by letter objecting to Doyle's treatment of him, attacking the December memorandum, and asking to be reinstated as the coordinator of the Gypsy Moth Control Program.

In April 1986, Doyle wrote the "Official Letter of Reprimand" to Mason. He also reevaluated Mason's job performance as "unsatisfactory." Doyle again placed Mason on leave with pay "because I have reasonable cause to believe that the retention of your services in an active duty status may be detrimental to the interest of the County." Mason responded that Doyle's actions were "improperly motivated and unfair." In May 1986, Doyle sent a final memorandum to Mason. He wrote, "In view of your continuing undesirable behavior and your record of unsatisfactory performance, I have approved your separation from service...." Doyle also stated that Mason had the right to appeal the dismissal under the "Personnel Rules of Fairfax County."

Later in May, Mason filed a "grievance" with the Fairfax County Personnel Office. Doyle then sent Mason a letter stating that Mason had waived his right to a hearing under the rules because of his failure to file a grievance within ten days. Mason appealed Doyle's determination, and the Fairfax County Executive responded, "Since more than ten days elapsed from the date you gained knowledge of your separation and the date you initiated the grievance procedure, I find that your [sic] have waived your rights under [the Personnel Rules]." Mason then appealed to the Fairfax County Circuit Court, which affirmed the County Executive's determination.

On this appeal, Mason contends that the district court erred in dismissing his due process claim against Fairfax County and Doyle; in dismissing his misrepresentation claim against Waghray; in directing a verdict against him on his reprisal claim against Doyle; in directing a verdict against him on his defamation claim against Doyle; and in directing a verdict against him on his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim against Doyle. Doyle, Waghray and Bunn, in turn, contend that the district court erred in denying their request for attorneys' fees.

Finding no merit to any of Mason's contentions, we affirm the district court's actions. We also affirm the district court's denial of attorneys' fees to the remaining defendants.

AFFIRMED.