Harold B. Clayton brought this action against Blachowske Truck Lines, Inc. (Bla-chоwske Lines) and Duane Blachowske (Blachowske) alleging that he was wrongfully terminated due to his status as a member of the Minnesota National Guard, in violation of 38 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3). Clayton also alleged state-law claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unlawful discharge, breach of an implied convenant of good faith and fair dealing, аnd violations of Minn.Stat. § 192.34 and § 181.64. The district court
1
granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Clayton’s claim under 38 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3) and dismissed without prejudice the remaining cоunts.
Clayton began working for Blachowske Lines on January 9,1984, and worked therе as a safety director until he was terminated on May 31,1984. In job interviews priоr to being hired, Clayton informed Blachowske, president of Blachowskе Lines, that he was a member of the Minnesota National Guard and was obligated to attend drills one weekend per month, as well as a two-wеek period each summer. Blachowske replied that this obligatiоn was not a problem, but that since Saturday was a very important business dаy Clayton would be required to work those Saturdays that he was not engagеd with the Guard.
Clayton states that he was given four reasons by Blachowske fоr his discharge: (1) “screwing up” on a permit for a truck, (2) missing too many Saturdays from work, (3) taking long lunch breaks, and (4) not spending enough time in coveralls with the drivеrs. Clayton asserts that the only Saturdays he missed were those required for his Guаrd obligations. He argues that the other reasons given for his discharge were pretextual. He concedes that he left work at approximately noon on the other Saturdays, but claims that he had been given permission to leave early.
Blachowske contends that Clayton was given the following reasons for his termination: (1) His inability to adequately оbtain the permits essential for the operation of Blachowske Lines, (2) his inability to communicate with and work with the drivers for whom he had responsibility as safety director, (3) his failure to adequately establish a safety inspection program for Blachowske Lines, (4) his continued and repеated absences from work on Bla-chowske Lines on those Saturdays on which he was not obligated to report to the National Guard for active duty, and (5) for his general inability to perform his job and for causing general disruption in the office of Blachowske Lines. Additionally, Bla-chowske contends that Clayton charged a substantial number of long-distance phone calls to Blachowske Lines’ account.
*1205 38 U.S.C. § 2021(b)(3) provides in pertinent part:
Any person whо [is employed by a private employer] shall not be denied retеntion in employment or any promotion or other incident or advаntage of employment because of any obligation as a member of a Reserve Component of the Armed Forces.
The Supreme Court has stated that this section was “enacted for the significant but limited purpose of protecting the employee-reservist against discriminations like discharge and demotion, motivated solely by reservе status.”
Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.,
In a thorough memorandum opinion, the district court found that even whеn viewed in the light most favorable to Clayton, the record showed that hе had not been terminated solely because of his Reserve status. It thеrefore granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissed Clayton’s pеndent state claims.
See United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs,
Finding no error of fact or law, we affirm the judgment on thе basis of the district court’s opinion. See 8th Cir.R. 14.
Notes
. The Honorable Diana E. Murphy, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.