## Facts

- Robert E. McAndrew worked for Lockheed as Director of International Marketing and negotiated foreign aircraft sales.
- The U.S. Department of Justice investigated Lockheed’s sale of C-130 aircraft to Egypt for possible Foreign Corrupt Practices Act violations.
- McAndrew and many other employees were subpoenaed to testify before a federal grand jury.
- On the morning McAndrew was scheduled to appear (June 21, 1994), his supervisor, T.A. Graham, allegedly called and expressed that the company was unhappy with McAndrew’s decision to testify and suggested it would not be in McAndrew’s best interest to testify.
- McAndrew informed Graham he was under subpoena and would testify truthfully as ordered.
- McAndrew testified and was later terminated.
- McAndrew alleged Lockheed and certain officers agreed both to deter his grand jury testimony and to retaliate against him for testifying.
- The district court dismissed the § 1985(2) claim under the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine and dismissed related claims (including intentional infliction of emotional distress as time-barred); it certified judgment under Rule 54(b) while Lockheed’s counterclaims remained pending.

## Issues

1. Whether the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine bars a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) alleging a conspiracy between a corporation and its officers to deter testimony in federal proceedings.
2. Whether the doctrine applies when the alleged conduct would also constitute a criminal conspiracy to obstruct justice under federal law.
3. Whether the state-law intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was untimely.

## Decision

- The en banc Eleventh Circuit reversed the dismissal of McAndrew’s § 1985(2) claim and remanded for further proceedings.
- The court held the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine does not bar a § 1985(2) claim where corporate officers and the corporation allegedly conspired to deter testimony in federal court and the alleged agreement and acts constitute federal obstruction offenses.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim as time-barred.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 1985(2), a plaintiff may pursue civil liability for conspiracies to deter a witness, by force, intimidation, or threat, from testifying in federal court.
- The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine generally treats a corporation and its agents acting within the scope of employment as a single actor, defeating the plurality required for conspiracy.
- An exception applies in § 1985(2) witness-intimidation cases when the alleged conduct constitutes criminal obstruction and conspiracy under federal law (including 18 U.S.C. § 1512 and 18 U.S.C. § 371); corporate form does not immunize such agreements from civil conspiracy liability.
- A § 1986 claim is derivative of a § 1985 violation and fails if the § 1985 claim fails (and may also be subject to a one-year limitations period).
- State-law intentional infliction of emotional distress claims are subject to applicable statutes of limitations and are dismissed if untimely.

## Conclusion

The Eleventh Circuit recognized a criminal-conduct exception to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine for § 1985(2) claims alleging corporate witness intimidation that also amounts to federal obstruction-of-justice crimes, reinstating McAndrew’s civil conspiracy claim while leaving the time-barred emotional distress claim dismissed.


McAndrew v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 206 F.3d 1031 (11th Cir. 2000) (en banc)