The overwhelming weight of authority confirms that vaccines save lives. But vaccine opponents hav... more The overwhelming weight of authority confirms that vaccines save lives. But vaccine opponents have been vocal and influential, and even some who work in healthcare facilities distrust vaccines. The tension between employees who distrust vaccines and employers who want to encourage or require vaccination has led many healthcare policy and legal scholars to explore the legal and ethical implications of compulsory vaccine policies. While many scholars have made important contributions to this discussion, most of the legal scholarship has focused on a single vaccine for a limited class of employees: the influenza (flu) vaccine for healthcare workers. Moreover, the focus of the literature is on healthcare employers’ potential liability if they require employees to get the flu vaccine. However, new diseases threaten our communities constantly, and as new vaccines are developed (such as the Zika and Ebola vaccines currently being developed and tested) healthcare and non-healthcare employers must reconsider imposing mandatory vaccination policies. This Article considers the factors those employers should consider when deciding whether to require employees to be vaccinated against diseases other than the flu. Similarly, most arguments in support of or in opposition to flu vaccination policies do not address whether healthcare or other employers may face liability if they fail to require employees to be vaccinated. The question is critically important because mandating vaccines is almost unheard-of outside of the healthcare context. Many lawyers and government agencies advise employers to encourage but not mandate employee vaccination, and the only risks identified are the risks of being sued for imposing a mandate in violation of anti-discrimination statutes. The unstated premise is that there is no liability if the employer chooses not to require vaccination. This Article considers the accuracy of that premise and concludes that employers whose employees are likely to transmit diseases to other employees, vulnerable clients, or patients may face liability if they do not to require their employees to be vaccinated.
In the midst of recent debates regarding state bans on same-sex marriage, the states’ right to re... more In the midst of recent debates regarding state bans on same-sex marriage, the states’ right to regulate marriage was accepted as obvious and correct. But after the Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell that states’ refusal to allow or recognize same sex marriages violates the couples’ constitutional rights, even some conservatives are questioning whether states should continue to regulate marriage. While the amount and degree of regulation has decreased significantly in the last century, states still play an important role in defining key aspects of the marital relationship, including marital property rights. Despite their potentially life-altering impact, many couples enter into marriage ignorant of the scope, nature or effect of these laws. While states generally allow couples to alter the default rules by entering into a prenuptial (and in some states postnuptial) agreement, only those who are aware of the state default rules and who have the means to contract around them are abl...
The attorney-client privilege is recognized in every state and in the federal judicial system. Ye... more The attorney-client privilege is recognized in every state and in the federal judicial system. Yet despite its ubiquity, the scope of protection provided by the privilege varies widely among the various jurisdictions. Moreover, the privilege is generally considered to be a mere rule of evidence or state law and not a constitutional right. This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to and protects attorney-client privileged communications. Since clients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications with their attorneys and society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable, such communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable government searches and seizures. Recognizing Fourth Amendment applicability will establish a consistent minimum level of protection for privileged communications in every state and federal jurisdiction. Equally important, such recognition will reflect...
The overwhelming weight of authority confirms that vaccines save lives. But vaccine opponents hav... more The overwhelming weight of authority confirms that vaccines save lives. But vaccine opponents have been vocal and influential, and even some who work in healthcare facilities distrust vaccines. The tension between employees who distrust vaccines and employers who want to encourage or require vaccination has led many healthcare policy and legal scholars to explore the legal and ethical implications of compulsory vaccine policies. While many scholars have made important contributions to this discussion, most of the legal scholarship has focused on a single vaccine for a limited class of employees: the influenza (flu) vaccine for healthcare workers. Moreover, the focus of the literature is on healthcare employers’ potential liability if they require employees to get the flu vaccine. However, new diseases threaten our communities constantly, and as new vaccines are developed (such as the Zika and Ebola vaccines currently being developed and tested) healthcare and non-healthcare employers must reconsider imposing mandatory vaccination policies. This Article considers the factors those employers should consider when deciding whether to require employees to be vaccinated against diseases other than the flu. Similarly, most arguments in support of or in opposition to flu vaccination policies do not address whether healthcare or other employers may face liability if they fail to require employees to be vaccinated. The question is critically important because mandating vaccines is almost unheard-of outside of the healthcare context. Many lawyers and government agencies advise employers to encourage but not mandate employee vaccination, and the only risks identified are the risks of being sued for imposing a mandate in violation of anti-discrimination statutes. The unstated premise is that there is no liability if the employer chooses not to require vaccination. This Article considers the accuracy of that premise and concludes that employers whose employees are likely to transmit diseases to other employees, vulnerable clients, or patients may face liability if they do not to require their employees to be vaccinated.
In the midst of recent debates regarding state bans on same-sex marriage, the states’ right to re... more In the midst of recent debates regarding state bans on same-sex marriage, the states’ right to regulate marriage was accepted as obvious and correct. But after the Supreme Court’s holding in Obergefell that states’ refusal to allow or recognize same sex marriages violates the couples’ constitutional rights, even some conservatives are questioning whether states should continue to regulate marriage. While the amount and degree of regulation has decreased significantly in the last century, states still play an important role in defining key aspects of the marital relationship, including marital property rights. Despite their potentially life-altering impact, many couples enter into marriage ignorant of the scope, nature or effect of these laws. While states generally allow couples to alter the default rules by entering into a prenuptial (and in some states postnuptial) agreement, only those who are aware of the state default rules and who have the means to contract around them are abl...
The attorney-client privilege is recognized in every state and in the federal judicial system. Ye... more The attorney-client privilege is recognized in every state and in the federal judicial system. Yet despite its ubiquity, the scope of protection provided by the privilege varies widely among the various jurisdictions. Moreover, the privilege is generally considered to be a mere rule of evidence or state law and not a constitutional right. This Article argues that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to and protects attorney-client privileged communications. Since clients have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their communications with their attorneys and society is prepared to recognize that expectation as reasonable, such communications are protected by the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable government searches and seizures. Recognizing Fourth Amendment applicability will establish a consistent minimum level of protection for privileged communications in every state and federal jurisdiction. Equally important, such recognition will reflect...
Uploads
Papers by Teri Baxter