Union Pacific Railroad v. Moritz

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 [debt- or] 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 | 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