induced his employer to terminate his at-will employment?” See Haddle, 525 U.S. at 125, 119 S.Ct. 489. The Supreme Court ruled only on that issue. See Haddle, 525 U.S. at 126, 119 S.Ct. 489. The Eleventh Circuit had already previously rejected the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine. Because the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine was not before the Supreme Court, it would be a mistake to draw any inference from the Court’s silence on the issue. See United States v. Stewart, 650 F.2d 178, 180 (9th Cir.1981); National Electrical Contractors Association v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 632 F.Supp. 1403, 1414 (E.D.Cal.1986), aff'd, 888 F.2d 604 (9th Cir.1989). The intracorporate conspiracy doctrine first developed in the antitrust context. See Nelson, 200 F.2d at 914 (<HOLDING>). The Seventh Circuit extended the doctrine to
holding that a hospital can conspire with members of its medical staff recognizing that representation of a corporation by its officers in administrative proceedings is allowed holding that as a general rule the prosecution is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice recognizing that agents of a corporation may be held criminally responsible for crimes committed in the name of the corporation holding a corporation cannot conspire with its officers and agents to restrain trade in its own products