Gender and the Sharing Economy

While the sharing economy has been celebrated as a flexible alternative to traditional employment for those with family responsibilities, especially women, it presents challenges for gender equality. Many of the services that are “shared” take place in the context of intimacy, which can have substantial consequences for transacting, particularly by enhancing the importance of identity of both the worker and the customer. Expanding on previous research on intimate work — a critical area that exists largely in limbo between the law of the market and the law of the family — this Article, written for the Cooper-Walsh Colloquium, explores the significance of intimacy in the sharing economy and the implications for its regulation of the sharing economy and for sex equality. It argues that the intimacy of many sharing economy transactions heightens the salience of sex to these transactions, in tension with sex discrimination law’s goal of reducing the salience of sex in the labor market. But even if existing sex discrimination law extends to these transactions, the intimacy of the transactions again limits the law’s ability to promote gender equality in the same transformative way that it has in the traditional economy. The sharing economy thus raises serious concerns for proponents of sex equality

On the Syntax of Logic and Set Theory

We introduce an extension of the propositional calculus to include abstracts of predicates and quantifiers, employing a single rule along with a novel comprehension schema and a principle of extensionality, which are substituted for the Bernays postulates for quantifiers and the comprehension schemata of ZF and other set theories. We prove that it is consistent in any finite Boolean subset lattice. We investigate the antinomies of Russell, Cantor, Burali-Forti, and others, and discuss the relationship of the system to other set theoretic systems ZF, NBG, and NF. We discuss two methods of axiomatizing higher order quantification and abstraction, and then very briefly discuss the application of one of these methods to areas of mathematics outside of logic.Comment: 34 pages, accepted, to appear in the Review of Symbolic Logi

Measuring Hospital Performance: The Importance of Process Measures

Evaluates the effectiveness of Hospital Quality Alliance standards, and identifies specific activities hospitals can work on to improve performance and deliver higher quality health care

Toward a High Performance Health System for the United States

Describes the features of the U.S. healthcare system and measures ten areas of performance, including access to appropriate care, quality care from the patient's perspective, affordability, and capacity for improvement. Provides recommendations

Race and Education Differences in Disability Status and Labor Force Attachment

The labor force participation rates of older, working-aged black men and men with lower levels of education have historically been significantly lower than those of white men and men with more education, respectively. This paper uses data from the alpha release of the new Health and Retirement Survey (HRS) to examine the extent to which variation in health and job characteristics can account for these differences. Our analysis suggests that race and education differences in health status of middle-aged men can explain a substantial fraction of black/white differences in labor force attachment and essentially all of the gap between men with different levels of education.

The Illusion of Failure: Trends in the Self-Reported Health of the U.S. Elderly

Data from the National Health Interview Survey and elsewhere showed a trend toward worsening self-reported health among American men and women in middle age and older during the 1970s. This evidence - combined with the significant declines in age-specific mortality observed since the 1960s - led some researchers to suggest that, on average, the health of the older population is declining. We examine recent trends in self-reported health and find that the health declines observed during the 1970s generally reversed during the 1980s. This shift would appear to belie the notion that lower adult mortality necessarily implies worse health. We argue further that the reversals observed during the 1980s also call into question whether trends in self-reported health during the 1970s reflected actual health declines. We suggest that changes in the social and economic forces influencing the options available for responding to health problems, combined with earlier diagnosis of pre-existing conditions, provide a more plausible explanation for these trends - an explanation that is consistent with data from both the 1970s and 1980s.

Mobility Measures

Geographic mobility is a celebrated feature of American life. Deciding where to live is seen not only as a key personal freedom, but also a means of economic advancement. Millions of Americans move each year over great distances. But while this right to travel is safeguarded by the Constitution, these mobility decisions are not entirely free. In terms of moving long distances, employment and family reasons are central, and a regime of employment and family law “mobility measures” play a significant role in regulating why and how we move. This Article first sets forth this new framework of “mobility measures,” which are constituted by employment law sorting (moving across employers and space for employment purposes) and family law clustering (moving with a legally defined portable family unit). These mobility measures not only enable and facilitate long-distance moves, including with subsidies to the tune of billions of dollars a year, but they motivate these moves to take a particular form: to move for employment purposes, only taking our nuclear family with us. In this way, we are encouraged by the law to move, yet the law prevents us from mitigating the disruption caused by the move. So while mobility has its benefits, this Article argues that it has underappreciated costs. Long-distance moves destroy place-specific investments with our closest supporters that are crucial for everyday functions, as well as economic productivity. These relationship and economic costs harm all long-distance movers, but weigh particularly heavily on one group — women. This toxic combination of employment sorting and family clustering makes mobility more problematic than it needs to be. This Article closes by offering new ways of substantially altering employment sorting and family clustering to optimize the balance between the two and reap more benefits from mobility with fewer costs. These reforms would soften sorting while expanding clustering, and at the same time encourage certain forms of mobility (particularly to cities) that would permit a more optimal combination of sorting and clustering

The Case for Symmetry in Antidiscrimination Law

Antidiscrimination law faces a fundamental design question: the choice between symmetry and asymmetry. A symmetrical law prohibits discrimination on the basis of a trait for a universal class of persons, and for both “sides” of the trait. An asymmetrical law prohibits discrimination on the basis of one “side” of the trait, and for a limited class of persons. Current law is inconsistent in its design. For example, employment discrimination law prohibits race discrimination symmetrically (everyone is protected, and on the basis of any race), but prohibits disability discrimination asymmetrically (only the disabled are protected, and only on the basis of disability). This critical design choice has received scant attention outside of the affirmative action context, leaving this key inconsistency in current law unexplained, and the implications unexplored. Relying on employment discrimination law and the traits of race, sex, disability, and age as core examples, this Article provides the first systematic study of this design choice. It makes the case for symmetry on three grounds: purpose, practice, and politics. As for the purpose of antidiscrimination law, this Article reaches the counterintuitive conclusion that a symmetrical design that protects everyone is effective not only at reducing classifications on the basis of protected traits, but also at improving the labor market circumstances of subordinated groups. When it comes to practice, a symmetrical law avoids challenges arising from protected-class determinations that limit plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their claims. Finally, symmetrical antidiscrimination laws are more likely to produce positive policy feedback, generating greater support for these laws. After discussing how to optimize symmetry, this Article explores further applications, including additional traits, such as appearance and sexual orientation, and additional areas of law, such as housing law, education law, and constitutional law

Predetermined? The Prospect of Social Determinant-Based Section 1115 Waivers After Stewart v. Azar

Section 1115 of the Social Security Act allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the “Secretary”) to waive some of Medicaid’s requirements so states can enact “demonstration projects.” A demonstration project is an experiment a state can conduct by modifying aspects of its Medicaid program. To waive Medicaid’s requirements for this purpose, the Secretary must determine that the proposed demonstration project will likely assist in promoting Medicaid’s objectives. Using this standard, President Trump’s Secretary has approved waiver requests to enact demonstration projects that contain “community engagement” requirements. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has heard each challenge to the Secretary’s approval of these waiver requests. In each case, the court found that the proposed demonstration project was unlikely to assist in promoting Medicaid’s objectives—due in large part to the community engagement requirements. Throughout these cases, the Secretary argued that community engagement would likely make beneficiaries healthier. But the court responded that improving beneficiaries’ health is not a Medicaid objective and is thus an improper basis upon which to approve a waiver request. Another theme in these cases was the court’s mantra that Medicaid’s chief objective is to finance recipients’ care. Yet, to complicate matters, a different line of cases identifies Medicaid’s chief objective as not only financing recipients’ care but also ensuring its provision. If these are the objectives that a demonstration project must likely promote, many demonstration projects intended to improve health may not survive judicial scrutiny. This Comment discusses the leading community engagement requirement case, Stewart v. Azar. It does so with an eye toward the consequences that Stewart may have for social determinant of health-based demonstration projects. This Comment argues the courts should allow the Secretary to approve at least some of these projects, despite the roadblocks that Stewart appears to present

The Case for Symmetry in Antidiscrimination Law

Antidiscrimination law faces a fundamental design question: the choice between symmetry and asymmetry. A symmetrical law prohibits discrimination on the basis of a trait for a universal class of persons, and for both “sides” of the trait. An asymmetrical law prohibits discrimination on the basis of one “side” of the trait, and for a limited class of persons. Current law is inconsistent in its design. For example, employment discrimination law prohibits race discrimination symmetrically (everyone is protected, and on the basis of any race), but prohibits disability discrimination asymmetrically (only the disabled are protected, and only on the basis of disability). This critical design choice has received scant attention outside of the affirmative action context, leaving this key inconsistency in current law unexplained, and the implications unexplored. Relying on employment discrimination law and the traits of race, sex, disability, and age as core examples, this Article provides the first systematic study of this design choice. It makes the case for symmetry on three grounds: purpose, practice, and politics. As for the purpose of antidiscrimination law, this Article reaches the counterintuitive conclusion that a symmetrical design that protects everyone is effective not only at reducing classifications on the basis of protected traits, but also at improving the labor market circumstances of subordinated groups. When it comes to practice, a symmetrical law avoids challenges arising from protected-class determinations that limit plaintiffs’ ability to pursue their claims. Finally, symmetrical antidiscrimination laws are more likely to produce positive policy feedback, generating greater support for these laws. After discussing how to optimize symmetry, this Article explores further applications, including additional traits, such as appearance and sexual orientation, and additional areas of law, such as housing law, education law, and constitutional law