Medical Center, 184 F.3d 623, 632 (7th Cir.1999) (Payton). Although the origins of the doctrine are in corporate law, the majority of district courts in the Seventh Circuit apply the concept to § 1983 cases. See Stenson v. Town of Cicero, No. 03-cv-6642, 2005 WL 643334, at *8 (N.D.Ill. Mar. 15, 2005) (citing Tabor v. City of Chicago, 10 F.Supp.2d 988, 994 (N.D.Ill.1998) (collecting cases)). Notably, in Payton, the Seventh Circuit applied the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine outside of the corporate context. Payton, 184 F.3d. at 632-33 (“Although Wright [v. Illinois Dept. of Children & Family Services, 40 F.3d 1 oyed by the District, are part of the same governmental entity. See Cromley v. Bd. of Educ. of Lockport Tp. High School Dist. 205, 699 F.Supp. 1283, 1292 (N.D.Ill.1988) (<HOLDING>). Mnyofu further argues that the intracorporate
holding that petitioners status as school board members does not permit them to step into the shoes of the school board and invoke its right to appeal holding that a school district was not liable for sexual molestation of plaintiffs daughter by a teacher even though the acts occurred on school property and during school hours holding that intraconspiracy doctrine applied to plaintiffs claims against school board teacher school principal and district superintendent holding that suspended school superintendent was not entitled to due process guarantees afforded discharged certified school personnel recognizing employeremployee relationship between county school board and teacher