Lexplug logoLexplug

Haddle v. Garrison

Supreme Court of the United States
525 U.S. 121, 142 L. Ed. 2d 502, 1998 U.S. LEXIS 8081 (1998)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The termination of an at-will employee as part of a conspiracy to deter or retaliate against that employee for participating in a federal judicial proceeding constitutes a cognizable 'injury in his person or property' sufficient to support a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).


Facts:

  • Michael A. Haddle was an at-will employee of Healthmaster, Inc.
  • A federal grand jury indicted Healthmaster, Inc. and two of its officers, Jeanette Garrison and Dennis Kelly, for Medicare fraud.
  • Haddle cooperated with federal agents in the investigation and was subpoenaed to testify before the grand jury.
  • Haddle was also expected to appear as a witness in the upcoming criminal trial against his employer and its officers.
  • Garrison and Kelly conspired with another Healthmaster officer, G. Peter Molloy, Jr., to have Haddle terminated from his job.
  • The conspiracy's purpose was to retaliate against Haddle for his cooperation and to intimidate him from testifying in the federal proceedings.
  • As a result of the conspiracy, Haddle's employment was terminated.

Procedural Posture:

  • Michael Haddle filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia against Jeanette Garrison, Dennis Kelly, and G. Peter Molloy, Jr., alleging a violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2).
  • The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
  • The District Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that as an at-will employee, Haddle lacked a constitutionally protected property interest in his job and thus had not suffered an 'actual injury' required by the statute.
  • Haddle, as appellant, appealed the dismissal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
  • The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment, binding itself to its precedent in Morast v. Lance.
  • The United States Supreme Court granted Haddle's petition for a writ of certiorari to resolve a circuit split on the issue.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the termination of an at-will employee, as part of a conspiracy to retaliate against the employee for cooperating with a federal criminal proceeding, constitute an 'injury in his person or property' sufficient to support a claim for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2)?


Opinions:

Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist

Yes. The termination of an at-will employee motivated by a conspiracy to retaliate against or intimidate a federal witness constitutes an 'injury in his person or property' under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2). The lower court erred by requiring an injury to a 'constitutionally protected property interest,' a standard not found in the statute's text or purpose. The gist of the wrong at which § 1985(2) is directed is not the deprivation of property in the Due Process sense, but rather the intimidation of and retaliation against witnesses in federal court. The phrase 'injured in his person or property' is rooted in common law tort principles, where third-party interference with at-will employment has long been recognized as a compensable injury. The fact that an employment relationship is terminable at the will of the parties does not make it terminable at the will of outsiders through illegal interference.



Analysis:

This unanimous decision clarifies that the scope of 'injury' under the Civil Rights Act of 1871 is broader than the definition of 'property' for constitutional Due Process claims. By grounding the statutory interpretation in common law tort principles, the Court provides a federal remedy against witness intimidation and retaliation for at-will employees, who are particularly vulnerable to such coercion. This ruling resolves a circuit split and establishes a uniform standard that protects the integrity of the federal judicial process by shielding witnesses from conspiratorial economic harm, regardless of their employment status.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Haddle v. Garrison (1998)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"