The Impact of the Coronavirus Lockdown on Mental Health: Evidence from the US

The coronavirus outbreak has caused significant disruptions to people’s lives. We exploit variation in lockdown measures across states to document the impact of stay-at-home orders on mental health using real time survey data in the US. We find that the lockdown measures lowered mental health by 0.083 standard deviations. This large negative effect is entirely driven by women. As a result of the lockdown measures, the existing gender gap in mental health has increased by 61%. The negative effect on women’s mental health cannot be explained by an increase in financial worries or caring responsibilities

Inequality in the Impact of the Coronavirus Shock: Evidence from Real Time Surveys

We present real time survey evidence from the UK, US and Germany showing that the labor market impacts of COVID-19 differ considerably across countries. Employees in Germany, which has a well-established short-time work scheme, are substantially less likely to be affected by the crisis. Within countries, the impacts are highly unequal and exacerbate existing inequalities. Workers in alternative work arrangements and in occupations in which only a small share of tasks can be done from home are more likely to have reduced their hours, lost their jobs and suffered falls in earnings. Less educated workers and women are more affected by the crisis

Furloughing

Over 9 million jobs were furloughed in the UK during the Coronavirus pandemic. Using real time survey evidence from the UK in April and May, we document which workers were most likely to be furloughed and analyze variation in the terms on which they furl

Inequality in the Impact of the Coronavirus Shock: New Survey Evidence for the UK

Using new UK survey data collected on March 25th 2020, we already find that: 57% of workers engaged in less paid work over the past week than usually. 8% of workers in employment a month ago have already lost their job due to COVID-19. For those still in work, the expected probability of job loss within the next four months is 33%. On average, workers expected to earn 35% less in the next four months compared to usual and expect there is a 49% chance of them having problems paying their bills. These harsh impacts are not evenly distributed across the population; the young, and low income earners have been hit hardest. Workers without paid sick leave beyond the statutory minimum are more likely to go to work with a cold or a fever and also work in close proximity to others

Systemic unfairness, access to justice, and futility: a framework

This article develops a conceptual framework for access to justice as a ground of judicial review in English law. We identify a hitherto undertheorised strand of cases which enable courts to review policy within proper constitutional bounds: the doctrine of systemic unfairness, which focuses on risks inherent in a system as a whole. In the context of access to justice, the relevant systemic risk is one of futility: a rational litigant’s inability to vindicate a meritorious claim. Proving the required facts in the context of judicial review proceedings is not an easy task. Litigants must look beyond the realisation of harm to the mechanisms which put access to justice at risk. It is only where the combined impact or cost of system-level risk is particularly severe that a policy-level challenge will succeed on access to justice grounds

Online tribunal judgments and the limits of open justice

The principle of open justice is a constituent element of the rule of law: it demands publicity of legal proceedings, including the publication of judgments. Since 2017, the UK government has systematically published first instance Employment Tribunal decisions in an online repository. Whilst a veritable treasure trove for researchers and policy makers, the database also has darker potential – from automating blacklisting to creating new and systemic barriers to access to justice. Our scrutiny of existing legal safeguards, from anonymity orders to equality law and data protection, finds a number of gaps, which threaten to make the principle of open justice as embodied in the current publication regime inimical to equal access to justice

The gender wage gap in an online labour market: the cost of interruptions

This paper analyses gender differences in working patterns and wages on Amazon Mechanical Turk, a popular online labour platform. Using information on 2 million tasks, I find no gender differences in task selection nor experience. Nonetheless, women earn 20% less per hour on average. Gender differences in working patterns are a statistically and economically significant driver of this wage gap. Women are more likely to interrupt their working time on the platform with consequences for their task completion speed. A follow up survey shows that the gender differences in working patterns and hourly wages are concentrated amongst workers with children

Vexatious claims: Challenging the case for employment tribunal fees

Since July 2013, recourse to Employment Tribunals in the United Kingdom has attracted fees of up to £1,200 for single claimants. The impact of this reform has been dramatic: within a year, claims dropped by nearly 80 per cent. This paper suggests that this fee regime is in clear violation of domestic and international norms, including Article 6(1) ECHR and the EU principle of effective judicial protection. Drawing on rational choice theory and empirical evidence, we argue that the resulting payoff structures, negative for the majority of successful claimants, strike at the very essence of these rights. The measures are, furthermore, disproportionate in light of the Government’s stated policy aims: fees have failed to transfer cost away from taxpayers, have failed to encourage early dispute resolution, and have failed to deter vexatious litigants. The only vexatious claims, we find, appear to be those which motivated the reforms in the first place

Vexatious claims: challenging the case for employment tribunal fees

Since July 2013, recourse to Employment Tribunals in the United Kingdom has attracted fees of up to £1,200 for single claimants. The impact of this reform has been dramatic: within a year, claims dropped by nearly 80 per cent. This paper suggests that this fee regime is in clear violation of domestic and international norms, including Article 6(1) ECHR and the EU principle of effective judicial protection. Drawing on rational choice theory and empirical evidence, we argue that the resulting payoff structures, negative for the majority of successful claimants, strike at the very essence of these rights. The measures are, furthermore, disproportionate in light of the Government's stated policy aims: fees have failed to transfer cost away from taxpayers, have failed to encourage early dispute resolution, and have failed to deter vexatious litigants. The only vexatious claims, we find, appear to be those which motivated the reforms in the first place