## Facts

- Deborah Ehling, a registered nurse and paramedic, worked for Monmouth–Ocean Hospital Service Corp. (MONOC), an emergency medical services provider in New Jersey.
- Ehling maintained a Facebook account configured so that only her Facebook “friends” could view her wall posts; she did not add MONOC managers as friends.
- Ehling was Facebook friends with co-workers, including Tim Ronco, who was also friendly with a MONOC manager.
- After Ehling posted a profane comment about paramedics treating a wounded shooting suspect from a high-profile incident, Ronco took screenshots of her post and forwarded them to MONOC management.
- MONOC suspended Ehling with pay and issued a letter stating concern that the post reflected disregard for patient safety.
- Ehling alleged MONOC obtained access to her restricted posts by coercing or threatening a Facebook-friend employee to access his account in management’s presence.
- Ehling sued in federal court asserting, among other claims, violations of the Stored Communications Act (SCA), the New Jersey Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance Control Act, and common-law invasion of privacy; the court later addressed cross-motions for summary judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether non-public Facebook wall posts restricted by privacy settings are covered communications under the SCA.
2. Whether MONOC violated the SCA by obtaining and using Ehling’s restricted Facebook post through a co-worker.
3. Whether MONOC’s acquisition and use of the post constituted common-law intrusion upon seclusion.
4. Whether the New Jersey wiretap statute applied where the employer obtained a post after it was transmitted and stored.

## Decision

- The court held that non-public Facebook wall posts restricted to a limited audience can qualify as protected communications in electronic storage under the SCA.
- The court granted summary judgment to MONOC on the SCA claim because the post was provided by a Facebook friend who had authorized access and voluntarily disclosed it, placing the access within the SCA’s authorization framework.
- The court granted summary judgment to MONOC on intrusion upon seclusion because the record did not support Ehling’s claim that MONOC coerced access, and MONOC received the content from a recipient with legitimate access rather than by surreptitious intrusion.
- In an earlier ruling, the court dismissed the New Jersey wiretap claim because the alleged conduct involved access to a communication in post-transmission storage, not interception during transmission.
- The court disposed of Ehling’s remaining claims at summary judgment in MONOC’s favor.

## Legal Principles

- Non-public social media posts limited by privacy settings may constitute “electronic communications” in “electronic storage” protected by the SCA.
- SCA liability turns on unauthorized access; disclosure by an intended recipient or authorized user who voluntarily provides the communication to a third party generally defeats an SCA claim based on the third party’s receipt.
- Intrusion upon seclusion requires an intentional intrusion into private affairs that would be highly offensive to a reasonable person; receipt of information from a willing recipient with authorized access, without proof of coercion or circumvention, does not satisfy the intrusion element.
- Wiretap statutes targeting “interception” generally require capture during transmission; accessing a stored social media post after transmission is not an interception under such frameworks.

## Conclusion

The court recognized that restricted Facebook posts can be protected under the SCA and may support an expectation of privacy, but it found no actionable violation where the employer received screenshots from a co-worker who was an authorized Facebook friend and there was no evidentiary basis for coerced or surreptitious access.


Ehling v. Monmouth-Ocean Hosp. Serv. Corp., 961 F. Supp. 2d 659 (D.N.J. 2013)