Dennis A. Granlund v. Northwest Airlines

Eighth Circuit

Dennis A. Granlund v. Northwest Airlines

22 F. App'x 659

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 2001

Docket01-1520

StatusUnpublished

This text of 22 F. App'x 659 (Dennis A. Granlund v. Northwest Airlines) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dennis A. Granlund v. Northwest Airlines, 22 F. App'x 659 (8th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Granlund was discharged by Northwest Airlines, Inc. (NWA) following an internal investigation in which NWA concluded that he had abused travel-pass privileges. Granlund then brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn.Stat. Ann. §§ 363.01, et seq., alleging that he was discharged because of a perceived disability (alcoholism) and in retaliation for his pursuit of rights under a collective bargaining agreement and his off-duty consumption of alcohol. After the district court 1 granted summary *660 judgment to NWA, Granlund appealed. Upon careful de novo review of the record, see Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Assuming Granlund established prima facie cases of disability discrimination and retaliation (and we agree with the district court that he did not), he failed to create a jury issue on whether NWA’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his discharge was merely a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. See Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 14 F.3d 1305, 1309-10 (8th Cir.1994) (no pretext where evidence did not show allegedly comparable employees had similar work histories, similar justifications for rule infraction, or other similarities, and where there was no evidence other employees had engaged in additional misconduct as plaintiff had).

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Granlund leave to amend his complaint after the court’s deadline for amendment had passed, see Knoth & Smith & Nephew Richards, 195 F.3d 355, 358 (8th Cir.1999), or in awarding sanctions to NWA for Granlund’s failure to attend his duly noticed deposition, see Farnsworth v. City of Kansas City, 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 820, 110 S.Ct. 77, 107 L.Ed.2d 43 (1989).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The HONORABLE DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge for the District of *660 Minnesota.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

Dennis Granlund was discharged by Northwest Airlines, Inc. (NWA) following an internal investigation in which NWA concluded that he had abused travel-pass privileges. Granlund then brought this action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101, et seq., and the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), Minn.Stat. Ann. §§ 363.01, et seq., alleging that he was discharged because of a perceived disability (alcoholism) and in retaliation for his pursuit of rights under a collective bargaining agreement and his off-duty consumption of alcohol. After the district court 1 granted summary *660 judgment to NWA, Granlund appealed. Upon careful de novo review of the record, see Mathews v. Trilogy Communications, Inc., 143 F.3d 1160, 1163 (8th Cir.1998), we affirm.

Assuming Granlund established prima facie cases of disability discrimination and retaliation (and we agree with the district court that he did not), he failed to create a jury issue on whether NWA’s legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for his discharge was merely a pretext for discrimination or retaliation. See Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 14 F.3d 1305, 1309-10 (8th Cir.1994) (no pretext where evidence did not show allegedly comparable employees had similar work histories, similar justifications for rule infraction, or other similarities, and where there was no evidence other employees had engaged in additional misconduct as plaintiff had).

We also conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Granlund leave to amend his complaint after the court’s deadline for amendment had passed, see Knoth & Smith & Nephew Richards, 195 F.3d 355, 358 (8th Cir.1999), or in awarding sanctions to NWA for Granlund’s failure to attend his duly noticed deposition, see Farnsworth v. City of Kansas City, 863 F.2d 33, 34 (8th Cir.1988) (per curiam), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 820, 110 S.Ct. 77, 107 L.Ed.2d 43 (1989).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The HONORABLE DONOVAN W. FRANK, United States District Judge for the District of *660 Minnesota.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 F. App'x 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dennis-a-granlund-v-northwest-airlines-ca8-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack