Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123

Page 1 of 9 - Cover Page

2038158-1969
2038158_c_17662.docx
University

Document Details

Submission ID
trn:oid:::3626:244940123
5 Pages

Submission Date 950 Words

Jun 21, 2025, 6:11 PM GMT+3

4,703 Characters

Download Date

Jun 21, 2025, 6:12 PM GMT+3

File Name

2038158_c_17662.docx

File Size

23.0 KB

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 1 of 9 - Cover Page
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 2 of 9 - Integrity Overview

26% Overall Similarity

The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.

Filtered from the Report

Bibliography

Crossref database

Crossref posted content database

Match Groups Top Sources

16 Not Cited or Quoted 26% 17% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
1% Publications
0 Missing Quotations 0% 25% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

0 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Integrity Flags
0 Integrity Flags for Review
Our system's algorithms look deeply at a document for any inconsistencies that
No suspicious text manipulations found. would set it apart from a normal submission. If we notice something strange, we flag
it for you to review.

A Flag is not necessarily an indicator of a problem. However, we'd recommend you

focus your attention there for further review.

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 2 of 9 - Integrity Overview
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 3 of 9 - Integrity Overview

Match Groups Top Sources

16 Not Cited or Quoted 26% 17% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
1% Publications
0 Missing Quotations 0% 25% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

0 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Top Sources
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be displayed.

1 Submitted works

Berkeley College Woodland Park on 2024-02-08 5%

2 Submitted works

Miami Dade College on 2025-04-25 4%

3 Submitted works

Berkeley College Woodland Park on 2024-10-11 4%

4 Submitted works

Franklin University on 2024-12-11 2%

5 Submitted works

Berkeley College Woodland Park on 2024-02-10 2%

6 Submitted works

Franklin Pierce University on 2021-08-03 1%

7 Submitted works

Franklin University on 2023-11-15 1%

8 Submitted works

Franklin Pierce University on 2021-08-09 1%

9 Submitted works

Franklin University on 2024-12-12 1%

10 Submitted works

Miami Dade College on 2025-04-14 <1%

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 3 of 9 - Integrity Overview
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 4 of 9 - Integrity Overview

11 Submitted works

Franklin Pierce University on 2021-08-08 <1%

12 Submitted works

Franklin University on 2023-07-28 <1%

13 Internet

www.coursehero.com <1%

14 Submitted works

Franklin University on 2023-07-31 <1%

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 4 of 9 - Integrity Overview
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 5 of 9 - Integrity Submission

Workplace Privacy Search Case

Student Name

Institution

Course

Professor

Date

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 5 of 9 - Integrity Submission
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 6 of 9 - Integrity Submission

Workplace Privacy Search Case

5 1. What were the legal issues in this case? What did the court decide?

Legal Issues:

7  Whether the employer’s access to a Facebook post violated the Stored Communications Act

(SCA), part of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA).

12  Whether this access amounted to a common law invasion of privacy under New Jersey law.

Court’s Decision:

14  The SCA covered Facebook posts as "stored communication."

4  However, the employer did not violate the SCA because the post was voluntarily provided by

the plaintiff's Facebook "friend", under the “authorised user” exception.

9  The privacy tort claim also failed because there was no evidence of intentional intrusion by the

employer. The managers passively received the information and did not solicit it.

2 2. Why did the Facebook post qualify as a “stored communication”? Why did the

manager’s access to that post not violate the Stored Communications Act?

The Facebook post was seen as a “stored communication” because it was saved on

Facebook’s servers, not just sent and deleted. When individuals share anything on Facebook, they

are stored or saved on the site. The Stored Communications Act secures such personal, saved

messages unless these messages are publicly available. Here, the nurse enabled privacy restrictions

where only her Facebook friends could view her messages; hence, her posting on Facebook was

11 regarded as private and is covered by the law. The manager did not, however, access the post by

13 himself. One of her Facebook friends, a nurse, saw the post and brought it to the manager's

4 attention because it was a coworker. The fact that the coworker had the right to view the post she

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 6 of 9 - Integrity Submission
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 7 of 9 - Integrity Submission

shared willingly with the manager did not breach the law. There is an exception to the law

according to which a person who got a message lawfully is permitted to share it. Thus, although it

was a personal post, the dissemination of such information was legally done, and the manager did

not violate the law.

8 3. Why did the plaintiff’s privacy tort claim also fail?

6 The nurse also tried to sue her employer for invasion of privacy under common law, a set

of rules made by courts. To win over such a case, an individual should show two things, viz. that

some person trespassed on their privacy and secondly that such an act would disturb a normal

human being. In the present case, the court stated that there was no evidence to show that the

managers consciously acted wrong on purpose. They did not hack her Facebook account, request

her password, or coerce anyone to reveal her posts. Instead, one of her Facebook friends, a

colleague, did it on her behalf without prompting the bosses.. The managers were even surprised

to see it. Since the managers didn’t do anything directly to get the post and just looked at what

someone else gave them, the court said they didn’t invade the nurse’s privacy. The court also said

it’s not enough to feel betrayed by a friend; it has to be a real invasion of private life. So, the

nurse’s privacy claim failed.

1 4. Would the case outcome have been different if one of the managers had demanded

the coworker’s Facebook password and viewed the post that way?

Yes, the outcome of the case would have been different. If one of the managers had

10 demanded the coworker’s Facebook password to see the post, that could be seen as unauthorised

access. The Stored Communications Act protects private electronic messages, like private

Facebook posts. It also says a person must give real, voluntary permission to access their account.

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 7 of 9 - Integrity Submission
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 8 of 9 - Integrity Submission

If a manager forced a worker to provide their password, the law might see that as pressure or

coercion, not real permission. In that case, the manager could be breaking the law because they

would be accessing private information in a way that was not allowed. Also, courts may see this

6 as an invasion of privacy under common law because it is a more direct and aggressive action. So,

if a manager had gotten the post by force, instead of being given it freely, the court might have

ruled against the employer. The result might have favoured the employee instead. Employers must

be cautious not to pressure workers into sharing private passwords.

3 5. Should the nurse have been disciplined for her statement on Facebook? Why or why

not? What are some practical implications of this case for employers and employees?

Whether the nurse should have been disciplined depends on how her employer viewed the

impact of her Facebook post. On the one hand, she was very emotional and intense about

paramedics and security officers. It was considered unprofessional, more so because she was in

healthcare practice. Her employer might have feared that what she says would affect the company's

image, or people would doubt that she could offer care. Conversely, she uploaded it on her own

Facebook page and did not share it with the rest of the world, but with people she knows. Humans

are entitled to express their views in their personal lives, and she might have believed that the post

would remain personal. Before punishing a person due to off-duty speech, employers should

consider deep thoughts. To employees, this case serves as a lesson that sharing posts is possible

even in an employee's private life. The case demonstrates to employers the need to ensure

transparent policies on the use of social media. It also acts as a reminder to protect the privacy of

employees. Employers are not supposed to go to extremes and attempt to log in to a secret social

media account even without the password, or require employees to provide the password.

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 8 of 9 - Integrity Submission
 Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 9 of 9 - Integrity Submission

Submission ID trn:oid:::3626:244940123
Page 9 of 9 - Integrity Submission