In other words, they argue that employers have a property right to the work of their employees. Employers have used this thinking in validating their inspecting of the e-mail accounts of former employees who went to work for competitors. For example, Eugene Wang, an executive at Borland International, left to work for Symantec, a competitor. Borland claimed to have found e-mail messages indicating that Wang sent internal, confidential memos and documents to Symantec. Wang sued Borland for invasion of privacy, but Borland's actions were justified as a property right because the company paid for his account.
Employee has no privacy right in e-mail.
There have been a number of cases brought by upset employees against their employers on invasion of privacy charges for failing to observe what the employees felt were their lawful privacy rights. The rulings in these cases have made it clear that employees should have no expectation of privacy when they send their e-mail messages. With this knowledge, employees should be careful of what they send by e-mail, and always ask the question of whether their employer could safely read the message without any repercussions to them. The court ruled for Epson and dismissed the case based on their determination that e-mail was not the type of electronic communication which the California courts meant to be protected by the privacy laws. In the companion case to Flanagan, Shoars v. Epson America Inc., No.