Judge Martini indicates that he was uncomfortable in the role of trying to fit the round peg of advanced digital technology into the square hole of a federal law enacted nearly $30$ years earlier: "Most courts, including this one, would prefer that Congress update the statute to take into account the invention of the Internet." Why would a legislature be a better aspect of our legal system for this task?

Nurse Ehling also alleged a violation of New Jersey's Conscientious Employee Protection Act $($CEPA$),$ mentioned in Chapter $2($after the Pierce case$).$ As Judge Martini explained:

Under CEPA, a plaintiff must demonstrate: $(1)$ a reasonable belief that the employer's conduct was violating either a law, rule, regulation or public policy; $(2)$ she performed a "whistle blowing" activity; $(3)$ an adverse employment action was taken against her; and $(4)$ a causal connection existed between the whistle$-$blowing activity and the adverse employment action.

Articulate Ehling's claim under the CEPA. How would the hospital respond? Considering the facts of this case, would Ehling's CEPA claim survive summary judgment?