(7th Cir.1994) ] focused on corporate managers, nothing in its reasoning precludes us from applying it to supervisors and subordinates, so long as all are working in the corporation’s (or governmental entity) interest.”) (emphasis added). Mnyofu argues that the Defendants are not employed by the same entity because Norwood and Hunigan are Board members, Leak and Motten are district administrators, and Winfrey was acting as a Park Forest police officer. (Resp. at 12.) Mnyofu has not pled Winfrey is a “co-conspirator” but argues that “the facts alleged in the Complaint show his involvement in the conspiracy.” (Id.) But with respect to Winfrey, Mnyofu fails to allege an essential element of a conspiracy claim: an agreement. See Mosley v. City of Chicago, 614 F.3d 391, 399 (7th Cir.2010) (<HOLDING>). The remaining four Defendants, who are all
holding that because original interception was not unlawful subsequent use by prosecutor could not be found unlawful holding that conspiracy requires an agreement to accomplish either an unlawful purpose or a lawful purpose by unlawful means holding that evidence to prove a conspiracy need only be such that reasonable jurors could infer that the parties entered into an unlawful agreement holding that a plaintiff who charged the defendants with conspiring to perpetrate an unlawful purpose could not recover because the defendants committed no unlawful act holding that both the unlawful possession and unlawful use prongs were met and noting that the firearm transferred to the individual was not registered making the individuals possession of it necessarily unlawful