PER CURIAM.
This case of alleged gender discrimination arises under the Minnesota Human Rights Act, Minn.Stat. § 363.01 et seq. Common-law claims were also alleged. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and we affirm.
We have little to add to the well-reasoned opinion of the District Court. The plaintiff, Melissa Weets, was employed by the defendant E.M.S.A. for about four months in 1998. On June 30 of that year, she was discharged, for the stated reason that she had been wearing inappropriate clothing. The plaintiff was a nurse, and all of the inmates at the prison for which the defendant provided medical care were men. The case of course has something to do with gender, but we do not believe that there is any substantial evidence that plaintiff was treated in either a discriminatory or an unreasonable fashion. In the particular context of this case, it was reasonable for the employer to require certain standards of dress. In addition, there were other problems with the plaintiffs conduct at work. We have considered the plaintiffs other arguments urged on appeal and hold that they are without merit. We think that the nature of the case requires no more extended discussion.
The judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
A true copy.
. The Hon. Michael J. Davis, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota.