The Court disagrees. Nordling's mechanism for holding individuals liable for the bad-faith or malicious termination of an employee in certain circumstances does not encroach upon the protections afforded to the discretionary acts of executive bodies by Willis and Dietz. Because the rule of Nordling does not make the employer, in this case the City, liable, the Court finds that the rule of Willis and Dietz is not applicable to Lueth's tortious interference with contract claim. See Pierce v. Honan, 2001 WL 682885, at *3 (Minn.Ct.App. June 19, 2001) (finding that an employee's tortious interference with contract claim could be brought in the state district court); see also Willis, 555 N.W.2d at 283 (allowing an employee's common-law defamation claim to be brought in the state district court). The Court therefore denies Defendants' Motion insofar as it seeks to dismiss Lueth's tortious interference with contract claim.

Pierce eventually sued Honan and the county in state district court for violation of the whistleblower statute, defamation, and tortious interference with contract. On appeal, this court affirmed the district court's confirmation of a settlement between the county and Pierce and dismissal of Pierce's claims against Honan and the county. Pierce v. Honan, 2001 WL 682885 (Minn.App. June 19, 2001). Honan claims that the county "repeatedly refused to allow [him] access to the complaints filed against him[,] to statements obtained from `witnesses,' or to the final investigative reports."