Elmer Hillesland v. Federal Land Bank Association of Grand Forks

Supreme Court of North Dakota · 1987 · Contracts

Contractsemployment at willFarm Credit ActCort v. Ashwrongful dischargegood faith and fair dealingsummary judgmentage discrimination

Facts

Hillesland worked for the Association from 1956 and served as chief executive officer from 1972 until his discharge on June 15, 1983. In 1983, he became involved in a transaction in which his sons purchased the farm of Association customers Ray and Eva Westby; after board approval and review by the Bank's Review Committee, the sale was completed, though the Review Committee expressed concern about the appearance of a conflict of interest and barred Hillesland from further direct involvement. The Bank later investigated the matter and informed Hillesland at a board meeting that he was being discharged for violating written standards of conduct, damaging the image and reputation of the Association and the Bank, and exercising poor business judgment. Hillesland claimed his discharge violated the Farm Credit Act, breached an employment contract, constituted age discrimination, and amounted to tortious interference by the Bank with his employment contract with the Association.

Issue

Whether Hillesland could maintain claims for wrongful discharge under an implied private right of action in the Farm Credit Act, breach of an employment contract, breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, age discrimination, and tortious interference with contract. The court also had to determine whether summary judgment was proper on those claims.

Rule

No implied private right of action for wrongful discharge exists under the Farm Credit Act absent congressional intent under the Cort v. Ash analysis. Under N.D.C.C. § 34-03-01, employment with no specified term is terminable at will unless the employee produces evidence of a contract for a specified term or discharge only for cause. North Dakota does not recognize a cause of action for breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing when the claimed contract has no express term specifying duration. A party resisting summary judgment must present competent evidence raising a genuine issue of material fact and cannot rely only on pleadings or conclusory assertions.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Torres worked for Prairie Valley Agricultural Credit Cooperative in Bismarck for nine years. After she was fired, she sued in state court alleging that a federal agricultural lending statute requiring personnel decisions to be based on merit and efficiency implicitly gave employees a wrongful-discharge claim, but she identified no legislative history showing Congress intended to create such a remedy.

How should the court rule on Nina's statutory wrongful-discharge claim?

Explanation. The majority held that no implied private right of action for wrongful discharge exists under the Farm Credit Act because the Cort v. Ash analysis revealed no congressional intent to create such a remedy. Even if employees are among those affected, that alone is not enough. The key point is the absence of legislative intent to create a private cause of action.