Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hospital Service Corp.
961 F. Supp. 2d 659
D.N.J.2013Background
- Ehling, a MONOC nurse and union president, posted a private Facebook comment about a museum shooting; a coworker (Ronco), who was her Facebook friend, voluntarily shared screenshots with MONOC management.
- MONOC suspended Ehling with pay and issued discipline under a point system; several suspensions/termination notices were stayed and ultimately not enforced; Ehling later failed to return from extended medical/leave accommodations and was terminated after not completing accommodation forms.
- Ehling filed a multi-count complaint alleging violations including the Stored Communications Act (SCA), FMLA, NJLAD, CEPA, and common-law invasion of privacy; many claims remained at summary judgment.
- The court treated nonpublic Facebook wall posts as electronic communications in storage covered by the SCA but evaluated statutory exceptions and other claims on the undisputed record.
- After discovery, facts showed Ronco voluntarily provided posts to management (no coercion, no passwords); MONOC repeatedly accommodated Ehling’s FMLA requests and ultimately terminated her for failure to return/complete accommodation paperwork, not for whistleblowing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the SCA cover nonpublic Facebook wall posts? | Ehling: her privacy settings made posts nonpublic, so SCA applies. | MONOC: (argued other defenses; contested scope). | Court: Yes — nonpublic Facebook wall posts qualify as electronic communications in storage under the SCA. |
| Does the SCA prohibit MONOC’s receipt of Ehling’s post? (authorized-user exception) | Ehling: access was unauthorized; management obtained posts improperly. | MONOC: Coworker (a Facebook user) voluntarily shared the post; §2701(c) authorized access for a user intended recipient. | Court: Authorized-user exception applies; summary judgment for defendants on SCA claim. |
| Did MONOC interfere with or retaliate under the FMLA? | Ehling: MONOC obstructed/denied FMLA through repeated paperwork rejections and timing. | MONOC: Provided all requested FMLA leave, sought certifications, and accommodated requests; no adverse action tied to FMLA. | Court: No FMLA interference or retaliation; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Are Ehling’s NJLAD retaliation claims viable given CEPA election/waiver? | Ehling: NJLAD retaliation for testifying and filing suit. | MONOC: CEPA’s waiver bars NJLAD retaliation claims when CEPA suit is filed. | Court: CEPA waiver applies to LAD retaliation claims; summary judgment for defendants. |
| Was there CEPA retaliation (Zimek reporting) or invasion of privacy? | Ehling: Retaliated for EPA/NJDEP reports; invasion based on unauthorized access to private posts. | MONOC: No adverse action for whistleblowing (management often refrained from enforcing discipline); posts were shared voluntarily by a coworker. | Court: No CEPA retaliation (no adverse action or causation); no invasion of privacy (no intrusive act by defendants); summary judgment for defendants on both claims. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard)
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (genuine issue for trial standard)
- Konop v. Hawaiian Airlines, 302 F.3d 868 (SCA protects private-configured electronic communications)
- Crispin v. Christian Audigier, Inc., 717 F. Supp. 2d 965 (nonpublic social-networking wall posts fall under SCA protections)
- Snow v. DirecTV, 450 F.3d 1314 (limitations on SCA when page is publicly accessible)
- Theofel v. Farey-Jones, 359 F.3d 1066 (storage/backup treatment under SCA)
- Quon v. Arch Wireless Operating Co., 529 F.3d 892 (SCA interpretation in modern contexts)