Legal Document

525 U.S. 121119 S.Ct. 489142 L.Ed.2d 502 132 F.3d 46, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES119 No. 97 1472 MICHAEL A. HADDLE, PETITIONER v. JEANETTE G. GARRISON et al. ON WRIT CERTIORARI TO STATES APPEALS FOR ELEVENTH CIRCUIT [December 14, 1998] Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner Michael Haddle, an at-will employee, alleges that respondents conspired to have him fired from his job in retaliation for obeying a federal grand jury subpoena deter testifying at criminal trial. We hold such interference with employment may give rise claim damages under Civil Rights Act 1871, Rev. Stat §1980, 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). 2 According petitioner's complaint, indictment March 1995 charged employer, Healthmaster, Inc., Jeanette Garrison Dennis Kelly, officers Medicare fraud. cooperated agents investigation preceded indictment. He also appeared testify before pursuant subpoena, but did not due press time. was expected appear as witness trial resulting 3 Although Kelly were barred by Bankruptcy Court participating affairs they Peter Molloy, Jr., one remaining bring about termination. They this both intimidate petitioner retaliate against attendance federal-court proceedings. 4 sued United States District Southern Georgia, asserting 1985(2) various state-law claims. stated two grounds relief §1985(2): conspiracy upcoming attending As §1985 demands, he alleged had been "injured person or property" acts violation §1985(2) entitled recover occasioned injury jointly severally. 5 Respondents moved dismiss failure state upon which can be granted. Because conceded granted motion on authority Morast Lance, 807 F.2d 926 (1987). In Morast, Eleventh Circuit held employee who is dismissed proscribed has no cause action. The court explained "to make out action plaintiff must suffered actual injury. will . constitutionally protected interest continued employment. Therefore, Morast's discharge constitute statute." Id., 930. Relying its decision Appeals affirmed. Judgt. order reported 46 (1997). 6 Circuit's rule conflicts holdings First Ninth Circuits. See Irizarry Quiros, 722 868, 871 (CA1 1983), Portman County Santa Clara, 995 898, 909 910 (CA9 1993). therefore certiorari, 523 __ (1998), decide whether property person" when induced employer terminate part prohibited §1985(2). 7 Section 1985(2), relevant part, proscribes conspiracies "deter, force, intimidation, threat, any party court, matter pending therein, freely, fully, truthfully, injure account having so attended testified."1 statute provides if more persons engaged "do, done, act furtherance object conspiracy, whereby another injured property, recovery conspirators." §1985(3). 8 Petitioner's Federal Rule Procedure 12(b)(6) because, view, could must, course, assume facts complaint are true Our review case accordingly confined question: Can alleging employment?3 9 disagree conclusion suffer "constitutionally interest" Nothing language purpose proscriptions first clause §1985(2), nor attendant remedial provisions, establishes requirement. gist wrong directed deprivation intimidation witnesses terms define harm victim result retaliate. Thus, fact "property" purposes Due Process Clause, see Bishop Wood, 426 341, 345 347 (1976), does mean loss "injur[e] [petitioner] 10 sort here essentially third-party relationships states Such long compensable tort law, we reason ignore tradition case. Thomas Cooley recognized: 11 "One maliciously without justifiable cause, induces means false statements, threats putting fear, perhaps malevolent advice persuasion, liable thereby sustained. And it makes difference fixed term yet expired terminable employer." T. Cooley, Law Torts 589 91 (3d ed. 1906) (emphasis added). 12 This recognized Truax Raich, 239 33 (1915): 13 "The parties, respectively, others. employe manifest freedom exercise judgment illegal compulsion and, weight authority, unjustified third actionable although will." 38 (citing cases). 14 kind relations merely species traditional torts intentional contractual prospective relations. Restatement (Second) §766, Comment g, pp.10 (1977); id., §766B, c, 22. protection still afforded law today. W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. & Owen, Prosser Keaton §129, pp. 996, n. 83 (5th 1984) For example, State where underlying took place, parties wrongful Georgia Power Co. Busbin, 242 Ga. 612, 613, 250 S. E. 2d 442, 444 (1978) ("[E]ven though person's contract will, valuable right unlawfully interfered person"); Troy Interfinancial, 171 App. 763, 766 769, 320 872, 877 879 (1984) (directed verdict inappropriate defendant procured plaintiff's termination lie deposition hearing).4 extent refer principles Blackstone, Commentaries Laws England 118 (1768) (describing universe common "all private wrongs, civil injuries, offered rights either man's property"), find ample support our holding 15 reversed, remanded further proceedings consistent opinion. Notes 16 1. following conspiracies: "If Territory conspire deter, testified, influence verdict, presentment, petit juror lawfully assented him, being juror; impeding, hindering, obstructing, defeating, manner, course justice Territory, intent deny citizen equal laws, enforcing, attempting enforce, person, class persons, laws." 17 2. 1985(3) contains provision granting those harmed §1985. Kush Rutledge, 460 719, 724 725 (1983) (listing prohibits). 18 3. express regarding respondents' argument claims limited conduct involving force threat their only litigants, witnesses, leave issues courts below resolve remand. 19 4. tortious relation summary dismissal affirmed appeal. ultimate claim, however, bearing court.

Classification Label: 1