, an e-mail administrator in California, working for Epson, was fired after complaining to her employer that the e-mail of employees she trained was read and copied. She sued alleging wrongful termination in violation of the California statutes regarding ease dropping, wiretapping and slander. In court, Epson argued that the law makes no mention of e-mail privacy. The judge of the Superior Court of Los Angles County agreed and the case was dismissed. She appealed the entry of summary judgment to the California Court of Appeals and the ruling was affirmed.

             From a legal standpoint, the court"s decision was correct. California law on wiretapping and ease dropping could only be applied if it occurred during transmission. This is a situation in which the law has failed to keep up with technology. There are very few state or federal laws regarding privacy and e-mail. A California statute regarding ease dropping on confidential communications was held not to apply because the communication (e-mail) was not confidential to Epson.

             Because the law has failed to address this issue, the legal standing of e-mail communication is uncertain. From an ethical perspective, one could argue that employees should have some expectation of privacy when sending e-mail, unless there is evidence of wrongdoing. If the same employee were to send a letter outside the company, not on company stationary and using his or her own postage, there would be no question that a warrant would be required to open that mail. The difference, in my opinion, is that by sending the letter on personal stationary, the employee is using his or her own resources and not those of the company. When sending the e-mail, the employee is using a system that has been created for company use and is maintained by the company. That seems to be the difference between sending the letter and sending the e-mail. The employee should not have an expectation of privacy when sending e-mail on company time, using the company e-mail.