The New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that an employee did not have to complaint first to an external authority about the alleged discrimination in order to maintain a retaliatory discharge claim. In Tartaglia v. USB PaineWebber (A-107/108-06), the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for a former PaineWebber in-house attorney who claimed she was fired for complaining about allegedly unethical conflicts of interest in the legal department.
The Tartaglia decision is notable because the Court's ruling analyzed the common law whistleblower claim (Pierce claim) as opposed the statutory (CEPA) claim. In Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals Corp., the Court recognized a new cause of action for a firing "contrary to a clear mandate of public policy." 84 N.J. 58 (1980).
At trial, the plaintiff in Tartaglia had her claim for wrongful discharge dismissed because she did not complaint, or threaten to complain, to an external authority. The appellate division affirmed the dismissal. For her new trial, the plaintiff must specify the ethical rules she claims her former employer ignored. The Supreme Court noted that it appeared plaintiff was suggesting the legal department breached Rule of Professional Conduct 1.7(b), engaging in a conflict of interest by not telling PaineWebber financial advisors that they could maintain their private counsel in their disputes with the company.
Subscribe