Table 1.

Unadjusted Difference-in-Difference, Classified by Extent to Which Law Supports Employees to Actually Take Paid Sick Leave^a

Jurisdiction Pair/Implementation/Comparison	Mean # of foodborne illness cases per month 100K capita (SD)
	Pre	Post	Difference (Post − Pre)	Difference-indifference	Change from baseline associated with law, %
Laws that are more supportiveb
1				−0.49	−6.5
With PSL law	7.56 (3.31)	6.53 (1.81)	−1.03
No PSL law	2.46 (0.96)	1.92 (0.72)	−0.54
2				−0.68	−24.5
With PSL law	2.77 (0.79)	2.59 (0.67)	−0.18
No PSL law	2.96 (1.13)	3.46 (1.33)	0.5
Laws that are less supportiveb
3				–0.10	–5.1
With PSL law	1.97 (0.52)	2.60 (1.22)	0.63
No PSL law	1.34 (0.22)	2.06 (0.21)	0.73
4				0.59	23.0
With PSL law	2.57 (0.89)	2.81 (1.04)	0.24
No PSL law	2.37 (1.06)	2.02 (0.81)	−0.35

^aUnadjusted mean number of foodborne illness cases per month/100K capita (and SD), in jurisdictions with and without paid sick leave laws, before and after the paid sick leave law was implemented, classified by the extent to which the law supports employees to actually take the sick leave. A negative difference-in-difference indicates that the PSL is associated with a decrease in foodborne illness rates.

^bSan Francisco and Seattle’s laws are more supportive of employees taking paid sick leave, and Washington, DC and Connecticut’s laws are less supportive (see Methods).

PSL, paid sick leave