issues raised in Olmsted’s appeal. We review de novo the district court’s grant of summary judgment. Swift & Co. v. Elias Farms, Inc., 539 F.3d 849, 851 (8th Cir. 2008). A. Duress Olmsted asserts that the District threatened to file termination charges against him when it had no intention or grounds to do so. Olmsted further asserts that in light of Minnesota law that requires “[a] school board [to] report to the Board of Teaching ... when a teacher or administrator is suspended or resigns while an investigation is pending,” see Minn. Stat. § 122A.20, subd. 2, the District illegally promised not to report him if he resigned. According to Olmsted, this threat and promise placed him under legal duress and comp as a defense to a contract. Bond v. Charlson, 374 N.W.2d 423, 428 (Minn. 1985) (<HOLDING>); see also St. Louis Park, 411 N.W.2d at 291
holding that the statute incorporated all the rights and obligations of the contract emphasis added holding that an application is  pending from the time it is first filed  emphasis added holding that duress is available as a defense to a contract only when agreement is coerced by physical force or unlawful threats emphasis added citing wise 42 nw2d at 407 holding iowa common law touching assault met use of physical force required for enhancement under 18 usc  922g9 be cause any physical contact by necessity requires physical force to complete recognizing that an arrest requires either physical force  or where physical force is absent submission to the assertion of authority