Jennifer Pomeranz
Jennifer L Pomeranz
Scroll
Associate Professor of Public Health Policy and Management
-
Professional overview
-
Professor Jennifer Pomeranz is a public health lawyer who researches policy and legal options to address the food environment, obesity, products that cause public harm, and social injustice that lead to health disparities.
Prior to joining the NYU faculty, Professor Pomeranz was an Assistant Professor at the School of Public Health at Temple University and in the Center for Obesity Research and Education at Temple. She was previously the Director of Legal Initiatives at the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University. She has also authored numerous peer-reviewed and law review journal articles and a book, Food Law for Public Health, published by Oxford University Press in 2016.
Professor Pomeranz leads the Public Health Policy Research Lab and regularly teaches Public Health Law and Food Policy for Public Health.
"Policy is so important because it is the most effective way to influence public health. I got into public health to change the world -- to improve health and address inequities.”
-
Education
-
BA, History, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MIJD, Juris Doctorate, Cornell Law School, Ithaca, NYMPH, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA
-
Areas of research and study
-
Diet-related diseaseProducts that cause harmPublic Health LawPublic Health PolicySocial injustices that create health disparities
-
Publications
Publications
Misperceptions about added sugar, non-nutritive sweeteners and juice in popular children's drinks : Experimental and cross-sectional study with U.S. parents of young children (1-5 years)
AbstractHarris, J. L., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
Pediatric ObesityVolume
16Issue
10AbstractBackground: Experts recommend against serving sugary drinks and non-nutritive sweeteners to young children, but misperceptions about drink ingredients may contribute to consumption. Objectives: Assess parents' ability to identify added sugar, non-nutritive sweeteners and juice in children's drinks. Methods: Researchers recruited U.S. parents of young children (1-5 years) through an online survey panel (N = 1603). In a randomized experiment, participants indicated whether eight popular children's drink products contained added sugar or non-nutritive sweeteners and percentage of juice after viewing (a) front-of-package alone or (b) front-of-package plus nutrition/ingredient information. Participants also viewed common statements of identity on children's drinks to identify product ingredients. Results: When viewing front-of-packages alone, most participants accurately identified products with (83%-90%) and without (51%-65%) added sugar. Showing nutrition/ingredient information increased accuracy. However, the majority could not identify drinks with non-nutritive sweeteners (53%-58%), and many incorrectly believed that unsweetened juices contained added sugar (38%-43%), sweetened flavoured waters had no added sugar (24%-25%), and 100% juice contained less than 100% juice (37%). Furthermore, the majority could not identify product ingredients from statement of identity terms. Conclusions: Misperceptions about product ingredients under current labelling practices indicate that updated regulations are necessary, including clear disclosures of sweetener and juice content on package fronts.New developments in the law for obesity discrimination protection
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Puhl, R. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2013Journal title
ObesityVolume
21Issue
3Page(s)
469-471AbstractBackground: Obese individuals are frequent targets of weight-based discrimination, particularly in the employment setting. Victims of weight discrimination have sought legal restitution like others who have suffered from different forms of discrimination. However, in the vast majority of the United States, body weight is not a protected class and weight-based employment discrimination does not provide a basis for a legal claim. Some have attempted to seek legal recourse under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (collectively, the ADA), which protect against discrimination based on mental or physical disabilities in a variety of settings. Until recently, claims of weight discrimination under the ADA have also been largely unsuccessful. However, Congress recently passed the ADA Amendments Act, expanding the definition of what constitutes a disability and incorporating a broad view of ADA's coverage. Objective: This short communication provides an update of the law as it relates to employment based discrimination of obese people. The authors propose a legislative direction for future legal recourse. Design and Methods: The authors conducted legal research into the ADA Amendments Act, and synthesized this work relating to discrimination against weight in the employment context. Results: In light of the ADA Amendments Act, courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have provided protection for severely obese people from discrimination based on actual or perceived disability in the employment context. Conclusion: The authors discuss this positive legal development and additionally propose a targeted solution to address weight discrimination in the employment setting. National polling suggests there is considerable public support for such a measure. The authors thus recommend the implementation of a "Weight Discrimination in Employment Act" modeled after the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to adequately address this pervasive and damaging injustice toward individuals who are affected by obesity.New developments in the law for obesity discrimination protection
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Puhl, R. M. (n.d.).Publication year
2013Journal title
ObesityVolume
21Issue
3Page(s)
469-471AbstractBackground: Obese individuals are frequent targets of weight-based discrimination, particularly in the employment setting. Victims of weight discrimination have sought legal restitution like others who have suffered from different forms of discrimination. However, in the vast majority of the United States, body weight is not a protected class and weight-based employment discrimination does not provide a basis for a legal claim. Some have attempted to seek legal recourse under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 or the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (collectively, the ADA), which protect against discrimination based on mental or physical disabilities in a variety of settings. Until recently, claims of weight discrimination under the ADA have also been largely unsuccessful. However, Congress recently passed the ADA Amendments Act, expanding the definition of what constitutes a disability and incorporating a broad view of ADA's coverage. Objective: This short communication provides an update of the law as it relates to employment based discrimination of obese people. The authors propose a legislative direction for future legal recourse. Design and Methods: The authors conducted legal research into the ADA Amendments Act, and synthesized this work relating to discrimination against weight in the employment context. Results: In light of the ADA Amendments Act, courts and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have provided protection for severely obese people from discrimination based on actual or perceived disability in the employment context. Conclusion: The authors discuss this positive legal development and additionally propose a targeted solution to address weight discrimination in the employment setting. National polling suggests there is considerable public support for such a measure. The authors thus recommend the implementation of a "Weight Discrimination in Employment Act" modeled after the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to adequately address this pervasive and damaging injustice toward individuals who are affected by obesity.No need to break new ground: a response to the Supreme Court’s threat to overhaul the commercial speech doctrine.
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
Loyola of Los Angeles Law ReviewPage(s)
389-434Abstract~Opportunities to address the failure of online food retailers to ensure access to required food labelling information in the USA
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Cash, S. B., Springer, M., Del Giudice, I. M., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2022Journal title
Public Health NutritionVolume
25Issue
5Page(s)
1375-1383AbstractObjective: The rapid growth in web-based grocery food purchasing has outpaced federal regulatory attention to the online provision of nutrition and allergen information historically required on food product labels. We sought to characterise the extent and variability that online retailers disclose required and regulated information and identify the legal authorities for the federal government to require online food retailers to disclose such information. Design: We performed a limited scan of ten products across nine national online retailers and conducted legal research using LexisNexis to analyse federal regulatory agencies' authorities. Setting: USA. Participants: N/A. Results: The scan of products revealed that required information (Nutrition Facts Panels, ingredient lists, common food allergens and per cent juice for fruit drinks) was present, conspicuous and legible for an average of only 36·5 % of the products surveyed, ranging from 11·4 % for potential allergens to 54·2 % for ingredients lists. More commonly, voluntary nutrition-related claims were prominently and conspicuously displayed (63·5 % across retailers and products). Our legal examination found that the Food and Drug Administration, Federal Trade Commission and United States Department of Agriculture have existing regulatory authority over labelling, online sales and advertising, and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme retailers that can be utilised to address deficiencies in the provision of required information in the online food retail environment. Conclusions: Information regularly provided to consumers in conventional settings is not being uniformly provided online. Congress or the federal agencies can require online food retailers disclose required nutrition and allergen information to support health, nutrition, equity and informed consumer decision-making.Outstanding questions in first amendment law related to food labeling disclosure requirements for health
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
Health AffairsVolume
34Issue
11Page(s)
1986-1992AbstractThe federal and state governments are increasingly focusing on food labeling as a method to support good health. Many such laws are opposed by the food industry and may be challenged in court, raising the question of what is legally feasible. This article analyzes outstanding questions in First Amendment law related to commercial disclosure requirements and conducts legal analysis and policy evaluation for three current policies. These include the Food and Drug Administration's draft regulation requiring an added sugar disclosure on the Nutrition Facts panel, California's proposed sugar-sweetened beverage safety warning label bill, and Vermont's law requiring labels of genetically engineered food to disclose this information. I recommend several methods for policy makers to enact food labeling laws within First Amendment parameters, including imposing factual commercial disclosure requirements, disclosing the government entity issuing a warning, collecting evidence, and identifying legitimate governmental interests.Over-the-counter and out-of-control : Legal strategies to protect youths from abusing products for weight control
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Taylor, L. M., & Bryn Austin, S. (n.d.).Publication year
2013Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
103Issue
2Page(s)
220-225AbstractAbuse of widely available, over-the-counter drugs and supplements such as laxatives and diet pills forweight control by youths is well documented in the epidemiological literature. Many such products are not medically recommended for healthyweight control or are especially susceptible to abuse, and their misuse can result in serious health consequences. We analyzed the government's role in regulating these products to protect public health. We examined federal and state regulatory authority, and referred to international examples to inform our analysis. Several legal interventions are indicated to protect youths, including increased warnings and restrictions on access through behindthe- counter placement or age verification. We suggest future directions for governments internationally to address this pervasive public health problem.Participatory workplace wellness programs : Reward, penalty, and regulatory conflict
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
Milbank QuarterlyVolume
93Issue
2Page(s)
301-318AbstractPolicy Points: Workplace wellness programs that provide incentives for completing a health risk assessment are a form of participatory programs. There are legal and ethical concerns when employers assess penalties for not completing a health risk assessment, raising questions about the voluntariness of such a program. The Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services' 2013 regulations for participatory programs and employers' current practices conflict with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's prevailing interpretation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Context In keeping with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Congress revised the law related to workplace wellness programs. In June 2013, the Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services passed the final regulations, updating their 2006 regulatory framework. Participatory programs that reward the completion of a health risk assessment are now the most common type of wellness program in the United States. However, legal and ethical concerns emerge when employers utilize incentives that raise questions about the voluntariness of such programs. At issue is that under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, employers cannot require health-related inquiries and exams. Methods To analyze the current interpretation of the ADA, I conducted research on both LexisNexis and federal agency websites. The resulting article evaluates the differences in the language of Congress's enabling legislation and the federal departments' regulations and how they may conflict with the ADA. It also reviews the federal government's authority to address both the legal conflict and ethical concerns related to nonvoluntary participatory programs. Findings Employers' practices and the federal departments' regulations conflict with the current interpretation of the ADA by permitting employers to penalize employees who do not complete a health risk assessment. The departments' regulations may be interpreted as conflicting with Congress's legislation, which mentions penalties only for health-contingent wellness programs. Furthermore, the regulatory protections for employees applicable to health-contingent wellness programs do not apply to participatory programs. Conclusions Either Congress or the federal agencies should address the conflict among employers' practices, the wellness regulations, and the ADA and also consider additional protections for employees. Employers can avoid ethical and legal complications by offering voluntary programs with positive incentives.Policies to promote healthy portion sizes for children
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Miller, D. P. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
AppetiteVolume
88Page(s)
50-58AbstractPeople of all ages are increasingly consuming larger portions of food. Governments worldwide are involved in the regulation of many aspects of the food supply; however, policies and programs related to serving sizes for children vary or are not clearly communicated. This paper reviews U.S. federal and state government recommendations, policies, and laws related to serving size for children and suggests directions for future policy objectives and outstanding research needed to support the enactment of laws based on the best science. Specifically, this paper reviews federal dietary recommendations and requirements for nutrition programs, packaged food labels and restaurant menus; state regulation of retail environments and child care settings; food companies' self-regulatory options; and directions for future research and policy initiatives. The paper concludes that there are many opportunities for government to revise its policies and programs to better support healthy portion sizes for children and create a more transparent information environment to assist caretakers to do the same.Policy Opportunities and Legal Considerations to Reform SNAP-Authorized Food Retail Environments
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2023Journal title
Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPVolume
29Issue
5Page(s)
614-621AbstractCONTEXT: There is an invigorated national interest in nutrition security, with emphasis on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) playing a key role. OBJECTIVE: To support healthy food purchasing, several strategies have emerged to modify the food retail environment. However, the legal feasibility of several such policy options has not been established. DESIGN: Research was conducted using Lexis+ to evaluate statutes, regulations, and case law to determine the legal feasibility of requiring retail-based SNAP signage and nutrition disclosures, healthy endcaps and checkout aisles, and tying advertising restrictions to the licensing of SNAP retailers. SETTING: US in-store and online food retail retailers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Legal feasibility. RESULTS: Requiring retailers that designate certain foods or locations as SNAP-eligible to consistently do so in all SNAP-eligible pages/locations is likely feasible. If properly drafted to focus on the nutritional quality of food, healthy checkout and endcap restrictions are legally feasible. It is of unclear legal feasibility to require retailers (especially in-store) to disclose nutrition-related labeling, shelf tags, or nonfactual symbols indicating the relative healthfulness of products. Restricting or banning advertising is not legally feasible even if the government ties the restrictions to retail licensing requirements. CONCLUSIONS: Entities seeking to support healthy food retail should not seek to restrict advertising or compel retailers to convey messages against their interests. The government can license retailers and require them to abide by laws and other requirements that do not violate their constitutional rights. The government can also use its own speech through public service announcements, billboards, and transit advertising to encourage healthy food consumption for all shoppers including those who use SNAP. Additional research is warranted into online retail practices to evaluate variations in online checkout pages and to determine whether online retailers treat SNAP participants differently from non-SNAP participants.Pomeranz et al. respond
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Micha, R., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
108Issue
7Page(s)
e18-e19Abstract~Pomeranz responds
AbstractPomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
102Issue
SUPPL. 1Page(s)
S6Abstract~Population, Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics Associated with State Preemption Laws across States, 2009-2018
AbstractPagain, J., Pagain, J., Pagain, J., Pagain, J., Pagain, J., Pagain, J., Pagain, J., Pagain, J., Pagain, J., Silver, D., Silver, D., Silver, D., Silver, D., Silver, D., Silver, D., Silver, D., Silver, D., Silver, D., Akiya, K., … Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2024Abstract~Population, demographic and socioeconomic characteristics associated with state preemption laws in the United States, 2009-2018
AbstractPagán, J. A., Silver, D. R., Akiya, K., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2025Journal title
PloS oneVolume
20Issue
4 APRILAbstractObjective In the United States, preemption laws enacted by state governments can remove local government authority to enact policy and undermine community self-determination and local democracy. No study to date has evaluated the population, demographic, and socioeconomic characteristics associated with state preemption of public health policies. Our study identifies state characteristics associated with preemption of local paid sick leave, food and nutrition, tobacco control, and firearm safety policies. Methods We conducted a Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis using state-level demographic, socioeconomic, and population health indicators from 2009 to 2018 to predict state ceiling preemption of local paid sick leave, food and nutrition, tobacco control, and firearm safety policies. Results Several demographic, economic, political, and health factors best distinguish states with and without preemption in each of the four domains. Total state population was an important characteristic in all four trees and the non-Hispanic Black population was important in three trees. All other age- and race/ethnicity-related demographic variables included were important characteristics in at least one tree. Additionally, adult obesity and flu vaccination were relevant in the paid sick leave tree and firearm-deaths, suicide-deaths, and the unemployment rate were relevant in the firearm safety tree. The relationship between specific factors and preemption in each of the four domains varied depending on the location of the factor within the trees. Conclusions and relevance Specific population, demographic and economic characteristics in a state are associated with the adoption of ceiling preemption of paid sick, food and nutrition, tobacco, and firearm safety laws, but these characteristics vary by domain. Our study identified which populations within groups of states may be affected by preemption. The findings can inform whether preemption laws considered or adopted in a state may also require protective measures for population groups that could be adversely affected by these laws.Portion sizes and beyond - Government's legal authority to regulate food-industry practices
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Brownell, K. D. (n.d.).Publication year
2012Journal title
New England Journal of MedicineVolume
367Issue
15Page(s)
1383-1385Abstract~Preemption and local food and agriculture policies
AbstractNeff, R., Pomeranz, J. L., & Rutkow, L. (n.d.). (First).Publication year
2015Abstract~Public health and legal arguments in favor of a policy to cap the portion sizes of sugar-sweetened beverages
AbstractRoberto, C. A., & Pomeranz, J. L. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
105Issue
11Page(s)
2183-2190AbstractIn 2012, the New York City Board of Health passed a regulation prohibiting the sale of sugar-sweetened beverages in containers above 16 ounces in the city's food service establishments. The beverage industry and various retailers sued the city to prevent enforcement of the law, arguing that the board had overstepped its authority. In June 2014, the state's highest court agreed and struck down the regulation. Here we report the results of a content analysis of the public testimony related to the case submitted to the New York City Department of Mental Health and Hygiene. We identified major arguments in support of and against the sugar-sweetened beverage portion limit policy. We offer legal and scientific arguments that challenge the major anti-policy arguments and contend that, although this policy was not implemented in New York City, it can be legally pursued by other legislatures.Public Health Law in Practice
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Merrill, T. G., & Schroth, K. R. (n.d.).Publication year
2023AbstractThis book is a public health law textbook specifically for U.S. public health practitioners, advocates and students at the undergraduate, master, and doctoral level. It is the only public health law textbook for a public health audience that includes case law and provides practical information on the practice of public health. This book provides necessary background into law as it relates to the practice of public health, including the government’s authority to promote public health through policies and programs, and limitations on the government’s authority to protect public health. The book also addresses specific topics of deep interest and concern to public health readers and provides information on the mechanics of public health policymaking.Reductions in national cardiometabolic mortality achievable by food price changes according to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility and participation
AbstractWilde, P. E., Conrad, Z., Rehm, C. D., Pomeranz, J. L., Penalvo, J. L., Cudhea, F., Pearson-Stuttard, J., O'Flaherty, M., Micha, R., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2018Journal title
Journal of Epidemiology and Community HealthVolume
72Issue
9Page(s)
817-824AbstractBackground Suboptimal diets are a major contributor to cardiometabolic disease (CMD) mortality, and substantial disparities exist for both dietary quality and mortality risk across income groups in the USA. Research is needed to quantify how food pricing policies to subsidise healthy foods and tax unhealthy foods could affect the US CMD mortality, overall and by Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) eligibility and participation. Methods Comparative risk analysis based on national data on diet (National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2003-2012) and mortality (mortality-linked National Health Interview Survey) and meta-analyses of policy-diet and diet-disease relationships. Results A national 10% price reduction on fruits, vegetables, nuts and whole grains was estimated to prevent 19 600 CMD deaths/year, including 2.6% (95% UI 2.4% to 2.8%) of all CMD deaths among SNAP participants, 2.7% (95% UI 2.4% to 3.0%) among SNAP-eligible non-participants and 2.6% (95% UI 2.4% to 2.8%) among SNAP-ineligible non-participants. Adding a national 10% tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and processed meats would prevent a total of 33 700 CMD deaths/year, including 5.9% (95% UI 5.4% to 7.4%) of all CMD deaths among SNAP participants, 4.8% (95% UI 4.4% to 5.2%) among SNAP-eligible non-participants and 4.1% (95% UI 3.8% to 4.5%) among SNAP-ineligible non-participants. Adding a SNAP-targeted 30% subsidy for the same healthy foods would offer the largest reductions in both CMD mortality and disparities. Conclusion National subsidies for healthy foods and taxes on SSBs and processed meats would each reduce CMD mortality; taxes would also reduce CMD mortality more steeply for SNAP participants than for non-participants.Regulation of Added Substances in the Food Supply by the Food and Drug Administration Human Foods Program
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Broad Leib, E. M., & Mozaffarian, D. (n.d.).Publication year
2024Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
114Issue
10Page(s)
1061-1070AbstractThe US food supply is increasingly associated with diet-related diseases, toxicity, cancer, and other health harms. These public health concerns are partly attributable to a loophole in federal law. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) evaluates the premarket safety of ingredients regulated as food additives but allows the food industry to self-regulate and determine which substances to classify as generally recognized as safe (GRAS) based on undisclosed data and conclusions that the FDA never sees. Furthermore, the FDA lacks a formal approach for reviewing food additives and GRAS substances already found in the food supply. Substances in the food supply thus include innocuous ingredients (e.g., black pepper), those that are harmful at high levels (e.g., salt), those that are of questionable safety (e.g., potassium bromate), and those that are unknown to the FDA and the public. A recent court decision codified these gaps in the FDA’s current approach, leaving states to try to fill the regulatory void. The FDA and Congress should consider several policy options to ensure that the FDA is meeting its mission to ensure a safe food supply.Regulatory strategies for preventing obesity improving public health
AbstractGill, T., Pomeranz, J. L., Roberto, C. A., & Soo, J. (n.d.).Publication year
2015Page(s)
277-799Abstract~Severe deprivations of education should be considered states of emergency
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Chang, V. W. (n.d.).Publication year
2017Journal title
Journal of Public Health Management and PracticeVolume
23Issue
4Page(s)
336-338Abstract~State Gun-Control, Gun-Rights, and Preemptive Firearm-Related Laws Across 50 US States for 2009–2018
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Silver, D. R., & Lieff, S. A. (n.d.).Publication year
2021Journal title
American journal of public healthVolume
111Issue
7Page(s)
1273-1280AbstractObjectives. To assess state policy environments and the relationship between state gun-control, gun-rights, and preemptive firearm-related laws in the United States. Methods. In 2019 through 2020, we evaluated substantive firearm laws and preemptive firearm laws across 50 US states for 2009 through 2018. For each state, we compared substantive measures with preemptive measures on the same policy topic for 2018. Results. The presence of state firearm-related laws varied across states, but with the exception of “punitive preemption” the number of gun-control, gun-rights, and preemptive measures remained unchanged in most states from 2009 through 2018. As of 2018, a majority of states had preemptive measures on almost all gun-control policy topics without enacting substantive gun-control measures. Several states had a combination of gun-control and preemptive measures. Only a small number of states had gun-control measures with few to no preemptive measures. Conclusions. Even where state legislators were unable to pass statewide gun-rights measures, they succeeded in passing preemption, preserving state authority over a wide range of gun-control and gun-rights policy topics. The majority of states used preemption as a tool to support policy frameworks favoring gun rights.State Legislative Strategies to Pass, Enhance, and Obscure Preemption of Local Public Health Policy-Making
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., & Silver, D. R. (n.d.).Publication year
2020Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
59Issue
3Page(s)
333-342AbstractIntroduction: Local governments are often innovators of public health policy-making, yet states are increasingly preempting or prohibiting local control over public health issues. Previous research identified examples of strategies used by state legislatures to pass preemption in ways that may obscure public discussion about preemption or the topics preempted or enhance the strength of a previously passed preemptive law. Methods: To systematically identify strategies to pass, obscure, or enhance preemption, in 2019, the authors conducted a content analysis of the full text of the bills from which preemptive laws in 5 policy areas (tobacco control, firearms, paid sick leave, food and nutrition, and civil rights) passed over a 5-year period (2014–2018) for preemptive laws that remained in effect as of January 2019. Results: This research identified 5 methods state legislators used during the 5-year period to pass and support preemption: (1) pass preemptive bills quickly (11 laws); (2) obscure preemption by adding it to pre-existing bills on nonrelevant substantive topics (4 bills), bundling preemption of multiple nonrelated topics (4 bills), or titling bills in a way that does not reflect the substance of the bill (1 bill); (3) repeal and replace preemption (2 laws); (4) preempt litigation (1 law); and (5) enact punitive preemption (7 laws). Conclusions: Strategies employed to pass preemption obscure public debate about preemption and the underlying public health and social justice issues at stake while minimizing the ability of local governments to protect their populations and the nation to learn from local policy successes.State Paid Sick Leave and Paid Sick-Leave Preemption Laws Across 50 U.S. States, 2009–2020
AbstractPomeranz, J. L., Silver, D. R., Lieff, S. A., & Pagán, J. A. (n.d.).Publication year
2022Journal title
American journal of preventive medicineVolume
62Issue
5Page(s)
688-695AbstractIntroduction: Paid sick leave is associated with lower mortality risks and increased use of health services. Yet, the U.S. lacks a national law, and not all employers offer paid leave, especially to low-wage workers. States have enacted paid sick-leave laws or preemption laws that prohibit local governments from enacting paid sick-leave requirements. Methods: In 2019 and 2021, state paid sick-leave laws and preemption laws in effect in 2009–2020 were retrieved from Lexis+, coded, and analyzed for coverage and other features. Data from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis were used to estimate the jobs covered by state paid sick-leave laws in 2009–2019. Results: In 2009, no state had a paid sick-leave law, and 1 state had preemption. By 2020, a total of 12 states had paid sick-leave laws, with a form of preemption (n=9) or no preemption (n=3), and 18 additional states solely preempted local laws without requiring coverage, creating a regulatory vacuum in those states. Although all state paid sick-leave laws covered private employers and required care for children and spouses, some laws exempted small or public employers or did not cover additional family members. The percentage of U.S. jobs covered by state-required paid sick leave grew from 0% in 2009 to 27.6% in 2019. Conclusions: Variation in state paid sick-leave laws, preemption, and lack of employer provision of paid sick leave to low-wage workers creates substantial inequities nationally. The federal government should enact a national paid sick-leave law.