Perhaps the most far-reaching employment law opinion of the term was Tartaglia v. UBS PaineWebber Inc., 197 N.J. 81 (2008). The Court refined and recast the elements of a claim for discharge in violation of public policy under Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., 84 N.J. 58 (1980); it clarified the interplay between spoliation as an evidence issue and as a substantive claim of fraudulent concealment; it addressed what constitutes protected activity under the LAD; and it clarified the limits of fair comment in summation.
Plaintiff Maria Tartaglia is an attorney who began employment with UBS PaineWebber Inc. in 1992. Tartaglia had been terminated from a previous employment with Prudential-Bache, after she suffered from severe depression and was criticized for her work and for failing to keep up her personal appearance. For some period during her early years at Paine Webber, Tartaglia reported to Eric Seltzer, who gave her mixed reviews. After a 1994 year-end review that included criticisms of her judgment and timeliness, Tartaglia asked for a transfer from the regulatory group to the counseling group, which was granted. She made no complaint about Seltzer at the time.
