@article {1974981,
	title = {Revisiting Meriwether v. Hartop and Academic Freedom in Higher Education},
	journal = {American Business Law Journal},
	year = {2022},
	month = {2022},
	abstract = {Although the nature and extent of academic freedom has been subject to analysis for over a century, recent developments underscore the need to reconsider the proper scope of academic freedom. These developments include Meriwether v. Hartop, a 2021 Sixth Circuit decision in which a professor claimed a Constitutional right, based in academic freedom, to refuse to use a student{\textquoteright}s pronouns; the growing science of pedagogy and understanding of how students learn; and the changing role of higher education in the United States. We propose updated factors for assessing the scope of academic freedom that balance the interests of the university, individual faculty members, students, and the general public. In doing so, we specifically address and discuss the interest of the state in delivering an {\textquotedblleft}effective education{\textquotedblright}{\textemdash}a concept that we ground in both the literature of constitutional rights and also the literature of effective pedagogy, linking the interest of the state in delivering effective learning experiences to the science of teaching and learning. We also address the need for the recognition of gender pronouns and the potential for harm when they are not recognized.},
	keywords = {Business Law},
	author = {Scott,Inara and Brown,Elizabeth and Yordy,Eric}
}
@article {1975006,
	title = {R Corps: When Should Corporate Values Receive Religious Protection},
	journal = {Berkeley Business Law Journal},
	volume = {17},
	year = {2020},
	month = {2020},
	pages = {91-133},
	abstract = {In this article, we explain how a corporation might invoke religious freedom claims in order to protect corporate values such as diversity, equality, sanctuary, or women{\textquoteright}s access to reproductive care which are not exclusively associated with a religion, and are often held by secular entities. In order to do so, we must address the following unresolved legal issues: 1) How can one define whether a set of beliefs are {\textquotedblleft}religious{\textquotedblright} when those beliefs are held not just by a single individual, but by a diverse collection of individuals? 2) Does the meaning of religion change when it is no longer exercised by a human being but instead by a corporation? 3) Importantly, how would a court evaluate the religious claims of a business entity made up of diverse owners, members, and/or shareholders? And 4) What are the broader consequences, benefits and detriments of protecting such claims?},
	keywords = {Business Law},
	author = {Scott,Inara and Brown,Elizabeth and Yordy,Eric}
}
@article {1975021,
	title = {Belief v. Belief: Resolving LGBTQ Rights Conflicts in the Religious Workplace},
	journal = {American Business Law Journal},
	volume = {56},
	year = {2019},
	month = {2019},
	pages = {55-113},
	keywords = {Business Law},
	author = {Scott,Inara and Brown,Elizabeth}
}
@article {1975031,
	title = {Sanctuary Corporations: Time for Liberal Corporations to Get Religion?},
	journal = {Journal of Constitutional Law},
	volume = {20},
	year = {2018},
	month = {2018},
	pages = {1102-1144},
	address = {Philadelphia, PA},
	abstract = {Spurred on by the Trump administration{\textquoteright}s aggressive deportation policies, the {\textquotedblleft}sanctuary{\textquotedblright} movement has seen rapid growth in both religious and secular contexts. Some businesses have publicly expressed their support for undocumented people, but what happens if these businesses run afoul of immigration laws? Following the logic of Hobby Lobby v. Burwell, we argue that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could provide a shield for businesses, provided they act out of a sincere religious belief. We also discuss the heightened role of religion in today{\textquoteright}s legal landscape, and how this may ultimately be a dangerous result for civil society.},
	keywords = {Business Law},
	author = {Scott,Inara and Brown,Elizabeth}
}
@article {1975051,
	title = {Redefining and Regulating the New Sharing Economy},
	journal = {University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law},
	volume = {19},
	year = {2017},
	month = {2017},
	pages = {553-751},
	abstract = {While proponents of regulating the sharing economy suggest a need to protect public health, workers, and incumbent businesses, to ensure localities are made whole for the use of public services, opponents of regulation argue that government intervention will stifle innovation and undermine economic and community benefits. The problem with both sides of this argument is that advocates and detractors alike often fail to address the wide differences among the practices and business entities that currently fall under the same umbrella. To address this inappropriate conflation and the resulting confusion among consumers and regulators alike, the goal of this article is to define the sharing economy as it now stands and to create a taxonomy that distinguishes and differentiates the various types of business entities that have been lumped into it. This article then proposes regulatory responses to the differing categories in the taxonomy based on the risks they present.},
	keywords = {Business Law},
	url = {https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/},
	author = {Scott,Inara and Brown,Elizabeth}
}