99,000 Essays & Term Papers: Where You Buy Essays and Papers Online
Direct Essays, Where You Can Buy Essays and Papers Online

Instant Access to Buy Essays and Papers Online!
Acceptable Use Policy
Customer Service
Site Search


Login to View Essays and Papers Online

Join Now - Instant Access to Essays and Research Papers!

  Essay and Research Paper Topics
Acceptance Essays
Arts Essays
Custom Essays
English Literature Essays
Foreign
History Essays
Miscellaneous Research Papers and Essays
Movie Essays and Papers
Music Term Papers
Novels
People and Biography Research Papers
Politics Research Papers
Religion Research Papers
Science Essay Topics
Sports Research Papers
Technology Research Papers
 
  FAQ
Technical Support
Site Map
Direct Essays
 

 



Welcome to Direct Essays

This is a short summary of this paper!

Already a member? Go here to log in and view the entire paper!


Join Now!
by: Credit Card
Join Now!
by: Online Check
Join Now!
by: Phone 1-900
Special! View this paper for FREE!
  

The E-mail Administrator for Epson

In the case of Alana Shoars v. Epson America, Inc., 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.

the judges may think the facts of the case are so unusual that first, any decision will not be appropriate for use as precedent, or second, they are unsure whether an appellate court would agree with that decision, and they don't want to establish rules that would apply in other cases until there is further guidance. Therefore, a case marked "not for publication" shows only what a particular court would do with a particular set of facts, being warned that you should not extrapolate from that case if you

Some common words found in the essay are:
Court Appeals, FindLaw LawCrawler, California Epson, Angles County, America Inc, sending e-mail, ease dropping, Kerry Konrad, Bartlett York, regarding ease dropping, sending e-mail employee, privacy sending e-mail, expectation privacy sending, e-mail communication, law failed, expectation privacy, marked publication, using own, e-mail employee, sending letter, employee using,
Approximate Word count = 537
Approximate Pages = 2 (250 words per page double spaced)


  

Special! View this paper for FREE!
Click here to JoinNow!
by: Credit Card
Click here to Join Now!
by: Online Check
Click here to Join Now!
by: Phone 1-900

 

All papers and essays are for research and reference purposes only!
Copyright 2002-2009 Direct Essays , LLC. All Rights Reserved. DMCA
Webmasters make $$$$
Saved Papers