Union Pacific Railroad v. Moritz

How later courts describe this case

• holding "second and third questions . . . should be submitted to the jury"
• "predict[ing] ... that the New Jersey Supreme Court would confine the tort of unlawful retaliation to formal personnel actions that have an effect on either compensation or job rank...."
• "[P]redict[ing] . . . that the New Jersey Supreme Court would confine the tort of unlawful retaliation to formal personnel actions that have an effect on either compensation or job rank. . . ."
• rejecting a claim that interline balances held by a debtor railroad were trust funds, since "[n]othing in the way the [debtor] did business would have alerted other creditors that the funds ostensibly in its control were held in trust.”
• employee’s speech touched upon public concern even though his sole purpose was to invalidate a promotional plan adverse to him
• flatly rejecting the proposition that a finding of “potential” disruption could be sufficient to outweigh public employee’s interests in speaking out on matters of significant public concern and, instead, holding that a showing of actual disruption is required