This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

Hillesland worked for D since 1956 and eventually became its CEO. He was discharged in 1983. Early in 1983, he learned of the financial difficulties of the Westbys who were customers of D. They had received an offer to purchase their farm from another D customer. He contacted the Westbys and offered financial counseling. They just wanted to sell their farm. Eventually, this led to an offer by P’s sons to purchase the farm. P then submitted the details of the proposed transaction to the board of directors for their approval. It was approved. He then submitted the matter to the Bank’s review committee in St. Paul. It expressed concern over the appearance of a conflict of interest and prohibited any direct involvement by P in the transaction. The sale was completed shortly thereafter. An investigation was launched by the Bank, and two Bank representatives appeared before the board of D and told P that he was being discharged; he had violated the written standards of conduct and damaged the reputation of D and the Bank. Hillesland (P) sued for breach of contract, age discrimination and tortious interference by the Bank with D. Summary judgment was granted dismissing the action. P appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.