Court filing
RJN 7 — In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation (Dkt. 590-9, S.D. Cal. No. 3:21-md-02992)
Filed October 17, 2025 in In re Bank of America California Unemployment Benefits Litigation; one of 1415 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-10-17 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California · No. 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB · Doc. 590-9 · 2025-10-17 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
RJN 7
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40296
Page 1 of 30
CONGRESS.GOV
Unemployment Rates During the COVID-19 Pandemic
CRS Product Type:
Reports
CRS Product Number: R46554
Topics:
Publication Date:
Authors:
Labor & Employment
08/20/2021
Falk, Gene; Nicchitta, Isaac A.; Nyhof, Emma C.; Romero, Paul D.
Download PDF (3MB) I PDF Version History.
I E I ◄>) Listen I ►
Summary
Contents
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant effect on labor
market metrics for every state, economic sector, and major
demographic group in the United States. This report provides
information on unemployment rates, labor force participation
rates, and nonfarm payrolls in the United States during the
ongoing pandemic. It presents CRS analysis of overall
unemployment rate trends during the pandemic. The report first
examines these trends nationally, and then at the state and
industrial levels. Next, it examines how unemployment rates
varied across demographic groups. The report then repeats this
analysis, where appropriate, for the labor force participation rate,
which sheds light on the size of the workforce willing and
available for work. The final portion of the report analyzes the
impact the pandemic has had on overall employment and by
sector.
Among other findings, this report shows the following:
• In April 2020, the unemployment rate reached 14.8%-the
highest rate observed since data collection began in
1948. In July 2021, unemployment remained higher
(5.4%) than it had been in February 2020 (3.5%).
• The labor force participation rate declined to 60.2% in
April 2020-a level not seen since the early 1970s-then
• Introduction
• U.S. UnemP-!2Y.ment
Rate: Historical Trends
• ComRaring the Great
Recession and the
COVID-19 Recession
• COVID-19 Recession:
UnemRlQyment Trends
• UnemRlQyment Rates
hY. State
• UnemRlQyment Rates
hY. Sector
• UnemRlQyment Rates
for Full- and Part-
Time Workers
• UnemRlQyment Rates
hY. Sex and Agg
• UnemR.lgyment Rates
hY. Racial Grou12 and
HisRanic Ethnicity
• UnemRlQyment Rates
hY. Education
• U.S. Labor Force
ParticiP-ation Rate:
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40297
Page 2 of 30
began a partial recovery in May 2020. The labor force
participation rate was 61.7% in July 2021, 1.7 percentage
points below the level in January 2020, before the
pandemic and the economic recession.
• Nonfarm payrolls shed 22.1 million jobs between January
2020 and April 2020, with employment declining to 86% of
its pre-recession level. In July 2021, aggregate
employment remained 5.4 million jobs below its pre-
recession level.
• The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted economic sectors
disparately. The leisure and hospitality sector lost the
largest number of jobs since January 2020, and persons
last employed in this sector have consistently exhibited
some of the highest unemployment rates throughout the
pandemic. Additionally, the education and services sector
and the government sector have exhibited the second and
third-largest losses in jobs since January 2020, despite
relatively low unemployment rates among persons last
employed in these sectors.
• The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted demographic
groups disparately. Although all demographic groups were
affected, persons identifying as Black or Hispanic and
younger workers generally experienced relatively high
peaks in unemployment and relatively steep declines in
labor force participation over the course of the pandemic.
Additionally, persons with lower educational attainment
have generally experienced relatively higher
unemployment rates and lower labor force participation
throughout the pandemic.
Introduction
The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) declared
February 2020 as the start of the most recent economic
downturn, marking the end of the longest period of expansion in
U.S. history.1 This expansion followed the Great Recession
(December 2007 to June 2009), a downturn widely considered to
be the worst since the Great Depression (August 1929 to March
Historical Trends
• COVID-19 Recession:
Trends in Labor Force
ParticiRation
• Labor Force
ParticiRation Rate bY.
8ge and Sex
• Labor Force
ParticiRation Rate bY.
Race and EthnicitY.
• Labor Force
ParticiRation Rate bY.
Educational
Attainment
• COVID-19 Recession:
Nonfarm PaY.rolls
• Trends in
EmRIOY.ment in the
Private Sector
• Trends in
EmQIOY.ment bY.
Government Sector
• Data Limitations and
Caveats
• COVID 19 Pandemic-
Related Data Issues
• General Data Caveats
Figures
• Figure 1. Historical
UnemRJQY.ment Rate
• Figure 2. U.S.
UnemRJQY.ment Rate
• Figure 3. State
UnemRJQY.ment Rate
• Figure 4.
UnemRJQY.ment Rates
QY. Sector
• Figure 5.
UnemRJQY.ment Rates
for Part- and Full-
Time Workers
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40298
Page 3 of 30
1933).Z The unemployment rate rose quickly in March 2020, and
by April 2020 it had greatly surpassed its previous peaks
observed during and just after the Great Recession. This rise in
unemployment was caused by an unprecedented loss of 22.1
million jobs between January 2020 and April 2020. Many
individuals left the labor force over this period, and by April 2020
the labor force participation rateJ declined to 60.2%, a level not
seen since the early 1970s. In July 2021, the NBER declared that
the recession that was triggered at the beginning of the COVID-
19 pandemic ended in April 2020.i This makes the COVID-19
recession the shortest recession on record.
This deterioration in the U.S. labor market corresponded with
various advisory or mandated stay-at-home orders implemented
in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and other pandemic-
related factors affecting U.S. demand.§ States and localities
implemented these orders2 to mitigate the risks of COVID-19 after
it was declared a pandemic disease by the World Health
Organization on March 11, 2020.Z
This report discusses the state of the U.S. labor market using
data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The three primary
sources are the Current Population Survey (CPS), the Local Area
Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program, and the Current
Employment Statistics (CES) program. In addition to the usual
caveats about estimates (see the "General Data Caveats"
section), there were additional data challenges caused by the
COVID-19 pandemic (see the "COVID 19 Pandemic-Related
Data Issues" section). The pandemic led to lower survey
response rates by businesses and households. Additionally, the
BLS detected an error in certain agency categorization
procedures that likely underestimated unemployment early in the
recession . .!! Labor force participation rates were not affected by
this categorization error and met BLS standards of accuracy,
despite depressed response rates.~ BLS also identified an error in
the nonfarm enrollment data processing system wherein some
businesses were improperly included in estimates, although BLS
has since determined the impacts of this error were
insignificant.1Q
Many aspects of the labor market have recovered substantially
since the onset of the pandemic. The unemployment rate in July
• Figure 6.
Unemr;iloY.ment Rates
QY Sex and Ag~
• Figure 7.
Unemr;iloY.ment Rates
QY Racial Grour;i
• Figure 8.
Unemr;iloY.ment Rates
QY HisRanic Origin
• Figure 9.
Unemr;iloyment Rates
Qy Education
• Figure 10. Historical
Labor Force
ParticiRation Rate
• Figure 11. Labor
Force ParticiRation
Rate During COVID-
19 Pandemic
• Figure 12. Labor
Force Particir:iation
Rates by Age and Sex
• Figure 13. Labor
Force ParticiRation
Rate bY. Race
• Figure 14. Labor
Force ParticiRation
Rate by HisRanic
Origin
• Figure 15. Labor
Force Particir:iation
Rate by Educational
Attainment
• Figure 16. Change in
EmRloyment by
Sector
• Figure 17. Change in
EmRloyment in the
Private Sector
• Figure 18. Change in
EmRloyment in the
Public Sector
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40299
Page 4 of 30
2021 was 5.4% and was 9.4 percentage points below its most recent peak in April 2020
(14.8%). Data from the Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) administered by BLS
also point to a recovery in labor market conditions. Three procyclical metrics11 tracked by the
JOLTS-job openings, hires, and quits.R_are at some of their highest levels since BLS began
tracking these data in 2000. In June 2021, JOLTS reported that job openings were at 10.1
million, hires were at 6.7 million, and the number of quits was at 3.9 million, whereas in April
2020 job openings were at 5.4 million 1 hires were at 3.9 million, and the number of quits was at
2.1 million. Additional analysis of the JOLTS data is outside of the scope of this report. While
certain labor market statistics are pointing to a recovery in market conditions, the report will
show how many key labor market statistics have yet to reach their pre-pandemic levels.
This report generally finds the following:
• The unemployment rate peaked13 in April 2020, at a level not seen since data collection
started in 1948, before declining to a level in July 2021 that still remained 1.9
percentage points above the pre-recession rate observed in January 2020.
• In April 2020, the labor force participation rate declined to 60.2%, a level not seen since
the early 1970s. Labor force participation has improved since then to 61. 7%, which
remains 1. 7 percentage points below its pre-recession level.
• Nonfarm payrolls shed 22.1 million jobs between January 2020 and April 2020. In July
2021, aggregate employment remained 5.4 million jobs below its pre-recession level.
U.S. Unemployment Rate: Historical Trends
Prior recessions typically developed with gradually increasing economic distress. The most
recent recession caused by the COVID-19 pandemic was an abrupt and exogenous shock to
the economy~ The pandemic resulted in rapidly implemented efforts to limit contact among
individuals and many shutdown orders. Therefore, the trends in the unemployment rate in the
most recent recession differ from those in prior recessions (see Figure 1 ). Rates observed
during prior recessions rose relatively gradually over the course of an economic downturn and
then peaked.
The most recent recession exhibited an unprecedented sharp increase in the unemployment
rate (10.3 percentage points) from February to April 2020.14 In July 2021, the NBER declared
that the most recent recession lasted two months, ending in April 2020.15 Following the end of
the recession, the unemployment rate declined rapidly (6.4 percentage points from April 2020 to
August 2020) as temporarily furloughed workers returned to work. Despite these rapid declines,
the unemployment rate remains at an elevated level (5.4%) compared to February 2020. The
share of workers on furlough has declined since peaking in April 2020, while the share of
permanently laid off workers has steadily increased.1.9. Although economic projections have
generally improved since early in the recession, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has
projected that unemployment rates over 5.0% will persist through 2021 .17
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40300
Page 5 of 30
Figure 1. Historical Unemployment Rate
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 1948 to July 2021
G.)
cc
rr
10%
19-50
1960
1970
19B0
1990
2000
20 0
2020
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNS14000000
extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at b1tP-s:J/www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: Shaded regions indicate recessionary periods as identified by the National Bureau of Economic
Research.
The unemployment rate's relatively rapid decline since April 2020 may have been aided by laws
passed in response to both the recession and the pandemic. Congress has passed three
rounds of stimulus checks for families, 18 expanded nutrition assistance programs,.ll! and
enacted increases in refundable tax credits (which began being disbursed in July 2021 ).20 The
combined effect of these provisions is expected to increase families' disposable income and, in
turn, consumer spending, enabling businesses to better endure the recession; a 2020 study
from the NBER found that higher replacement rates of lost wages led to higher consumer
spending.21 Congress also enacted the Paycheck Protection Program, which provides loans
that can be fully forgiven if the majority of funds borrowed are used to maintain payrolls. 22
Additionally, Congress expanded Unemployment Insurance (UI) program benefits and extended
length of coverage.23 Some say this policy could directly lead to the unemployment rate
remaining above what it would be otherwise because past research has shown UI extensions
can extend the duration of unemployment for a relatively small segment of unemployed
workers.24 Recently, 26 states announced their intention to terminate their agreements to pay
COVID-19 UI benefits. However, according to the U.S. Department of Labor as of August 4,
2021, in two of these states (Indiana and Maryland) state courts have issued temporary orders
prohibiting withdrawal from COVID-19 UI programs. There have also been media reports of
additional legal challenges in other states that have announced terminations of COVID-19 UI
agreements. Many of these states have cited the potential work disincentives of expanded UI as
one reason for ending the program.25 A recent study examining data from April to July 2020
found that while UI benefit increases reduced employment by 0.2% to 0.4%, overall spending by
recipients increased by 2.0% to 2.6%.26 The authors note that while these expansions directly
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40301
Page 6 of 30
decreased employment among recipients, that increased spending among recipients may have
insulated the labor market from further deterioration.
These (and other) policies may have affected unemployment rate trends in several ways;
however, the causal impact of policy choices on the unemployment rate is beyond the scope of
this report.
Comparing the Great Recession and the COVID-19 Recession
During the Great Recession, the unemployment rate increased from 5.0% in December 2007
(the start of the recession) to 9.5% in June 2009 (the end of the recession) (see Figure 2). The
unemployment rate, however, did not peak until October 2009 when it hit 10.0%. In the most
recent recession, the unemployment rate increased from 3.5% in February 2020, to 4.4% in
March 2020, and then peaked at a high of 14.8% in the final month of the recession (April
2020). Since then, the unemployment rate has fallen to 5.4% in July 2021. The increase in the
unemployment rate between March and April 2020 represents the quickest month-over-month
increase in the unemployment rate and the April 2020 peak represents the highest overall
unemployment rate since the CPS data started being collected in 1948.27 The decline in the
unemployment rate of 6.4 percentage points between April 2020 and August 2020 represented
the largest decline in the unemployment rate over a four-month period since the data collection
began.
Figure 2. U.S. Unemployment Rate
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, November 2004 to July 2021
16°
Ap 12020
Peak: 14.8%
~
2%
{Q
a: c
lll
:>,
8 11/-
0 n.
E
t)
July 2021
C
:)
4%
RateofS..4%
2006
2010
20 6
2020
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNS14000000
extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httP-s://www.bls.gov/data/.
COVID-19 Recession: Unemployment Trends
The COVID-19 pandemic has affected the unemployment rates for every state, economic
sector, and major demographic group. During the most recent recession, unemployment rates
disproportionately increased among economic sectors delivering in-person services. Some
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40302
Page 7 of 30
demographic groups are overrepresented in such sectors, contributing to higher unemployment
rates for those workers. 28
Unemployment Rates by State
Figure 3 displays state-level monthly unemployment rates from January 2020 to June 2021 (the
state-level data for July 2021 have not been released as of the cover date of this report). The
figure shows that no state was immune from economic damage early in the pandemic.29 At the
onset of the most recent recession, the unemployment rate for every state and the District of
Columbia surpassed levels seen during the Great Recession. The variation in economic
damage was due to a number of factors, including the proportion of jobs in sectors that provide
nonessential services to in-person customers, 30 individual concerns of contracting COVI D-19
causing declines in personal consumption,31 and the implementation of stay-at-home orders
and business closure policies. 32
Figure 3. State Unemployment Rate
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to June 2021
P e-R
I
and CUnent
w
~
1s. ~
OR
Unomploymool Rate
ID
NO
NV
WY
SD
MN
~
IA
WI
IL
Ml
r....!:; • J!..--!
VT
NH
ME
~ ~ _,__
V
MA
PA
J
C
RI
OH
~ ~
r-,_::.
)',-!,.
.r-.!...
r,..!:.
AK
~
15 ,' ~ ~
.-----.- .-----.-
1/20
11,11 1.-20 er.!I
co
M
NE
kS
I
MO
AA
• --
KY
WV
TN
NC
VA
~
SC
_r.......::..
OK
LA
MS
L
GA
t
.,_.
)
16· ~ ~
..,.__;;:;
.Jo--..:1"· ~
-r--t'"" -,-,- -r--'1-' ....--,-
I r.1111
1'2a
I 1'.!U
'21 1/'J
'J1
TX
r--:;;..
___,..
1/2()
f.'2
MD
---
DC
FL
.J'-,...2;.
...---..-
/20
11121
DE
~
-,-,-
l/20
6121
.-----.-
1/20
&21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series extracted using the
Local Area Unemployment Statistics data series at httr2s://www.bls.gov/lau/
Notes: The National Bureau of Economic Research identified February 2020 as the first month of the most
recent recession. The month-over-month changes are point estimates and have not been tested for
significance. The state-level data for July 2021 have not been released as of the cover date of this report.
The unemployment rate in most states peaked in April 2020 and since declined. In June 2021 ,
the states with the highest unemployment rates were Connecticut (7.9%), New Mexico (7.9%),
Nevada (7.8%), California (7.7%), Hawaii (7.7%), and New York (7.7%). The states with the
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40303
Page 8 of 30
lowest unemployment rates in June 2021 were Nebraska (2.5%), Utah (2.7%), New Hampshire
(2.9%), South Dakota (2.9%), and Idaho (3.0%).
Unemployment Rates by Sector
Figure 4 displays the change in sector unemployment rates from January 2020, before the start
of the most recent recession, to July 2021. Sector unemployment rates define the
unemployment rate among individuals whose last job was in a particular sector. The figure
shows that some sectors were disparately impacted by the recession, although the data are not
seasonally adjusted. Without seasonal adjustments, it is difficult to determine the extent to which
unemployment trends are related to the recession or to seasonal trends. Readers should
interpret trends shown in Figure 4 with some caution as this report does not test for statistical
significance of these differences.
Figure 4. Unemployment Rates by Sector
Non-seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40304
Page 9 of 30
::,
Agriculture
40%
:30%
20%
0 ·o
Government
40%
30%
200,
,o
O% 9.3% Jfl A
I 2020
~,.
30%
20%
10%
30%
Mining
Wholesale and
Retail Trade
Jan '20
Jul '21
Construction
Information
12.3% ~ uty 2020
~%
Other Services
Education and
Health Services
!Leisure and
Hospitality
Flnancia
Activities
5.To/o fn May 2020
0
~%
Manufacturing
13.2"/o In Apr 120' II
~%
Protessiona and Tran portatlon and
Business Services
Utilities
14.2'!4 n May W20
)'-!!%
,Jan '20
Jul '21
Jan '20
Jul '2
Jan '20
Jul 21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple data series extracted
using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httgs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: Statistical significance is not calculated for these trends; it is unclear how dependent these trends are
on regular seasonal variation. Sectors are defined by the North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) and can be found at httgs://www.bls.gov/iag[!gs/iag index naics.htm. The figure shows
unemployment rates for wage and salary workers. Two sectors do not have displayed peak unemployment
rates. The mining sector experienced two peaks of 19.3% in November 2020 and February 2021, while the
agriculture sector experienced its peak before the most recent recession and pandemic began (12.5% in
January 2020).
Workers whose last job was in the leisure and hospitality sector experienced a higher peak in
unemployment (39.3% in April 2020) than did workers who were previously employed in any
other sector; they also had the highest unemployment rate in July 2021 (9.0%). However,
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40305
Page 10 of 30
elevated unemployment rates are not constrained to sectors providing in-person services.
Workers whose last job was in the mining or extraction sector have experienced steadily
increasing unemployment since the onset of the recession; in July 2021 they exhibited the
second highest rate (8.9%) among all workers across sectors. The lowest July 2021 rates were
among workers whose last job was in the financial activities (3.0%), government (4.1 %), or
manufacturing (4.2%) sectors. These sectors have exhibited relatively low unemployment rates
compared to most other sectors from February 2020 through July 2021 .33 Within sectors,
certain types of workers were more likely to lose their jobs than others early in the recession.
For example, some studies from early in the pandemic suggest that low-wage workers in the
leisure and hospitality sector and other services sectors experienced disproportionately large
employment losses.34
Unemployment Rates for Full- and Part-Time Workers
As shown in Figure 5 part-time workers experienced a higher peak unemployment rate (24.5%
in April 2020) than full-time workers (12.8% in April 2020). This disparity modestly reversed as
the recession progressed, as the unemployment rate for part-time workers in July 2021 (5.0%)
was less than the unemployment rate for full-time workers (5.5%).
There are a few considerations that may provide additional context. First, some workers who
last worked part-time jobs may have left the labor force, and hence are not counted in the official
unemployment statistics used in this report. It is unclear whether that is the case. Additionally,
there was a considerable increase in the number of part-time workers who reported that they
would have preferred to work full-time but worked part-time because their hours were reduced
or they could only find part-time jobs.35 This could be reflected as a reduced unemployment rate
among part-time workers. Further, BLS has observed that labor underutilization has remained
elevated for workers, including those who have been working part-time for economic reasons. 36
Figure 5. Unemployment Rates for Part- and Full-Time Workers
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Part-Time Workers
Full-Time Workers
25 .
(I)
20%
iii
a:
Peak· 12.8%
Currenl 5.5% •
Pre reoessm '. 4.1~k
Pre-
e SIOn 3..S'/4
Jan '20
Jul '2
Jan '20
Jul '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNS14100000 and
LNS14200000 extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httRs://www.bts.gov/data/.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40306
Page 11 of 30
Notes: Both groups experienced their peak unemployment rate in April 2020.
Unemployment Rates by Sex and Age
As seen in Figure 6 unemployment rates tended to increase more for younger workers and
were higher for women early in the most recent recession. Between February and April 2020,
the rate for women ages 16-19 increased by 25.3 percentage points to 36.3%; in contrast, the
rates for men of the same age increased by 16.2 percentage points to 28.2%. Since then, the
gap between younger men and women has narrowed.
The unemployment rate for teenaged men (10.4%) was higher than the rate for teenaged
women (8.7%) in July 2021. The rate for men ages 20-24 (10.4%) was higher than the rate for
women of the same age (7.7%). For older age groups, unemployment rates were much lower in
July 2021. The unemployment rate for women ages 25 to 54 (4.8%) was lower than the rate for
men (5.1 %) in that age band, while the rate for women ages 55 and over (4.3%) was slightly
lower than that of men ages 55 and over (4.4%).
Figure 6. Unemployment Rates by Sex and Age
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
-
Women
Men
16 to 19 years
20 to 24 years
25 to 54 years
40%
30 ,:.
20%
~
10 '
co
Cl,1 n1 8,7%•
a: c
• Pre-
ion:, t.2
G)
E
f\'K.: 27-9%
Jch
• Pru re
$SIIClt'I 6.7% ~
C rrenl .t.6%
>-% 40%
E
01
C
30%
:,
p
11: 23.3%
Pl -recession: 3"/.
20 ,
10,1.
cur,em 10.4% • j
C..""'11 , ....
• Pea
12%
~
Pre-reces510fl: 14'1,
Pre--recess,:in_ 6.6%
cm m 5.1%
55 years and over
• PM- e UIOO 2.5'1(,
Pre-f9CB5Sl00 2.7%
.p k 12.1
j ------
Cll
m: 4.A'¼
Jan '201
Jul '2
Jan '20
Ju1 '21
Jan '20
Jul ·21 Jan '20
Jul '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple series extracted
using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httP-s://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: Every group experienced their peak unemployment rate in April 2020.
Unemployment Rates by Racial Group and Hispanic Ethnicity
As seen in Figure 7 the unemployment rates for Black, Asian, and White37 workers increased
sharply in early 2020. But whereas the unemployment rate for White workers peaked in April
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40307
Page 12 of 30
2020, the rate for Black and Asian workers continued to rise through May 2020. The July 2021
rates for Black (8.2%), Asian (5.3%), and White (4.8%) workers were all higher than their
respective rates in January 2020. The rate for Black workers has declined 8.5 percentage points
since peaking in May 2020, compared to a decline of 9.6 percentage points for Asian workers
and 9.3 percentage points for White workers across the same period.
Figure 7. Unemployment Rates by Racial Group
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
4>
'ia
20
O:
16o/
~ 1 10~
ci
E
Cll
C
::,
5
Black
7o/o
Current. a.2°1 • •
Pre•reoess1on· 8.1%
Asian
Curr n1· 5.3% •
• Pre--.rec.es 1or1· 3.1%
Wh
• Pre-r ce SiOOI 3•/u
Jan '20
Jul '21
Jan ·20
Jul '21
Jan '20
Ju1 '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNS14000006,
LNS14000003, and LNS14032183 extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at
httRs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: Black and Asian workers experienced their peak unemployment rate in May 2020. White workers
peak rate occurred ln April 2020.
People of any race can identify as being either Hispanic or non-Hispanic in the CPS. The
unemployment rate for Hispanic workers rapidly increased by 13. 7 percentage points to 18.5%
from February to April 2020. For non-Hispanic workers the unemployment rate increased by 10
points to 13.6%. As seen in Figure 8, Hispanic workers continue to experience elevated
unemployment rates. In July 2021, nonseasonally adjusted unemployment rates experienced by
Hispanic (6.6%) and non-Hispanic (5.5%) workers were higher than those experienced prior to
the recession. While unemployment remains elevated compared to January 2020, these rates
are much lower than the peak exhibited in April 2020.
Figure 8. Unemployment Rates by Hispanic Origin
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40308
Page 13 of 30
Hispanic
Nao-Hispanic
20"
Cl)
~
5 •
a;_
i:
Gl
~
0%
Current: 5.5%
E
ru
=>
5%
Pre-recession: 5.1°/4
Pre-recession: 3.7%
Jan '20
Ju '21
Jan '20
Jul '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNU04000009 and
LNU04092169 extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httP-s://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: Statistical significance is not calculated for these trends; it is unclear how dependent these trends are
on regular seasonal variation.
Unemployment Rates by Education
In general, workers with lower levels of educational attainment have higher rates of
unemployment. This pattern has been amplified during the most recent recession, as seen in
Figure 9. The unemployment rate for workers with less than a high school diploma peaked in
April 2020 (21 .0%), which was higher than the peak for those at all other education levels. The
July 2021 rate for workers with less than a high school diploma (9.5%) was also higher than the
rate for all other education levels. Workers with a Bachelor's degree or higher, the highest
educational level classified here, had the lowest peak unemployment rate (8.4% in April 2020)
and the lowest July 2021 rate (3.1 % ) among all education levels.
Figure 9. Unemployment Rates by Education
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40309
Page 14 of 30
0
a.
25%
~
C :,
15
Le s than high school d ploma
Ctmen ' 9.5% •
Ofl 5.7%
Some college or associate degree
• Pea.It: 15•1.
Cuncnl. 5%
Jah '20
Joi '2
High school •graduates, no college
• Pre-roe
sion 3.7'¼
Bachelor d gree and higher
Current l .1%•
Joi '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple data series extracted
using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httP-s://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: All groups experienced their peak unemployment rate in April 2020.
U.S. Labor Force Participation Rate: Historical Trends
While the unemployment rate measures the prevalence of unemployment in the labor force, it
does not consider the state of the labor force itself. When persons stop looking for work, they
exit the labor force, decreasing the number of persons who are either working or actively looking
for work. Such persons are not counted in the unemployment rate, by definition, but are an
important group to examine when evaluating unemployment. CRS therefore uses the labor force
participation rate to further contextualize unemployment rates observed during the COVID-19
pandemic. The labor force participation rate measures the percentage of noninstitutionalized
people ages 16 and older who are either looking for work, or working.38
Over much of the past two decades, the labor force participation rate has generally declined.
Following several years of modest growth through the early and mid-90s, labor force
participation rates started to plateau, hit a historical peak in April 2000 (67 .3% ), and then
declined (see Figure 10). Labor force participation declined further following the Great
Recession, before stabilizing and steadily increasing starting in October 2015. This decline can
be attributed to several factors, although one prominent reason is the ongoing retirement of the
baby boomer generation. 39 Despite the increase exhibited following the Great Recession, the
labor force participation rate in January 2020 (63.4%) prior to both the COVID-19 pandemic and
economic recession remained below its historical peak.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40310
Page 15 of 30
Between February 2020 and April 2020, the labor force participation rate exhibited an
unprecedented decline of 3.1 percentage points as 8.3 million people left the labor force. The
participation rate partially recovered between May 2020 and August 2020 before stagnating. It
remains below the pre-recession rate (63.4%) in July 2021 (61 .7%).
Figure 10. Historical Labor Force Participation Rate
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 1948 to July 2021
70°'1)
.!l
a:
65%
C
~
«f
g
60%
f
Q)
u 0
I.I.
55
L..
0 !
50%
1950
1960
1970
980
990
2000
20 0
2020
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNS11300000
extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httgs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: Shaded regions indicate recessionary periods as identified by the National Bureau of Economic
Research.
COVID-19 Recession: Trends in Labor Force Participation
The COVID-19 pandemic affected the labor force participation rates in every major demographic
group. The analysis in this section compares the pre-recession (January 2020) labor force
participation rate to the current labor force participation rate, calculating the difference between
the two for each month between January 2020 and July 2021. Figure 11 shows the sharp
decline in the labor force participation rate for individuals ages 16 years and older between
February 2020 and April 2020. During this period, 8.3 million individuals left the labor force. The
overall rate recovered between May 2020 and August 2020 before stagnating. The labor force
participation rate in July 2021 remains 1.7 percentage points below its pre-recession level.
Figure 11. Labor Force Participation Rate During COVID-19 Pandemic
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40311
Page 16 of 30
~
~
+oppl
- ppt
·2ppl
-3ppl
Source: Created by CRS using data frorn the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNS11300000
extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httgs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: LFPR = Labor Force Participation Rate; ppt = percentage points. Changes in LFPR since January
2020 have not been tested for statistical significance.
Labor Force Participation Rate by Age and Sex
Figure 12 displays the change in the labor force participation rate since January 2020 by age
and sex. Between January 2020 and April 2020, every group experienced a decline in their
labor force participation rate. Women aged 16 to 19 (-7 .0 percentage points) and men aged 20
to 24 (-9.2 percentage points) experienced the largest declines in labor force participation
between January 2020 and April 2020. Men and women in the 25-54 and 55-and-older age
groups experienced smaller declines in labor force participation at the start of the COVID-19
recession. The 25-54 age group has experienced a substantial improvement in their
participation rate since the end of the recession in April 2020. However, the 55-and-older age
group has exhibited stagnating participation rates over this same period.
Figure 12. Labor Force Participation Rates by Age and Sex
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40312
Page 17 of 30
-
Women -
Men
16 to· 19 years
20 o 24 years
t
'
l f -
0 '
+Oppt
-3ppl
--6ppt
•7ppl (29 5 ' ) II\ April 2020 -6.9ppt (a3 6~) ill Aphl :200(1
-9ppt
+Oppt
-3ppl
•J..8ppl I
7%) n "- 2020
-6ppt
25 to 54 year
-9ppl
-9.2ppt (65.4%) in N> WW
55 years and over
Ji,,
~~3~.3'14)
Jan '20
Jul '21
Jan '20
Jul '21
Jan '20
Ju '2
Jan '20
Jul '2
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple data series extracted
using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httRs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: LFPR = Labor Force Participation Rate; ppt = percentage points. Changes in LFPR since January
2020 have not been tested for statistical significance.
Labor Force Participation Rate by Race and Ethnicity
Figure 13 displays the change in the labor force participation rate for the Black, Asian, and
White racial groups since January 2020. Between January 2020 and April 2020, each group
experienced a sharp decline in their labor force participation rate. In July 2021, the participation
rate for each group remained below its January 2020 value.
Figure 13. Labor Force Participation Rate by Race
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Black
Asian
+O.Gppl 64 5%}
I
I
~
1,0ppt
0
Cl.I
c!'
m
.t ... ppt ( ()
)
•
::i
1ppt
~
-,
E
-2ppt
g
(I)
0 c;
-3ppt
a,
...
~
-3.4ipt (60.9'%) fn ~
2020
i5
·4ppl
White
• -3. 1 ppl(60.J%) n Aprfl 2020
Jar '20
Jul '21 Jan '20
Jul '21 Jan '20
Ju1 '21
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40313
Page 18 of 30
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS ). Series LNS11300006,
LNS11332183, and LNS11300003 extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at
httQs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: LFPR = Labor Force Participation Rate; ppt = percentage points. Changes in LFPR since January
2020 have not been tested for statistical significance.
Individuals of any race can identify as Hispanic or non-Hispanic. The data on labor force
participation rate for these two ethnic groups are not seasonally adjusted. Therefore, this report
is constrained to a comparison across values for January 2020 and the most recent month for
Which the data are available. This comparison shows that Hispanic individuals had higher
participation rates in both January 2020 and July 2021 than non-Hispanic individuals, but the
decline in labor force participation over this period was greater for Hispanic persons. The labor
force participation rate for non-Hispanic individuals in July 2021 was 0.6 percentage points
below its value for January 2020 (see Figure 14). For Hispanic individuals, the participation rate
in July 2021 was 1.7 percentage points below its January 2020 value.
Figure 14. Labor Force Participation Rate by Hispanic Origin
Non-seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Hispanic
Non Hispanic
~
0
.Oppt
(IJ
'::1
~
-1.1ppt ~6.
~
E
•2ppt
g
~ .8ppt (59:} '/ lf1 April 20.2(1
~
C
Ill
~
•4ppl
0
-4.5ppl (GJ 1%) tri Af)l!I 2020
Jan '20
Ju '2
Jan '2D
J '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series LNU01300009 and
LNU01392169 extracted using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httP-s://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: LFPR = Labor Force Participation Rate; ppt = percentage points. Statistical significance is not
calculated for these trends; it is unclear how dependent these trends are on ,regular seasonal variation.
Changes in LFPR since January 2020 have not been tested for statistical significance
Labor Force Participation Rate by Educational Attainment
Figure 15 displays the difference in the labor force participation rate from its January 2020 level
for groups with different levels of educational attainment. Labor force participation fell for all
groups between January 2020 and April 2020. The largest decline was experienced by those
with a high school diploma but no college (-4.3 percentage points), which was followed by those
with less than a high school diploma (-3.3 percentage points). In July 2021, every group except
those with less than a high school diploma remained below their labor force participation rate in
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40314
Page 19 of 30
January 2020. Those with a high school diploma (-3.3 percentage points) remained well below
their labor force participation rates in January 2020.
Figure 15. Labor Force Participation Rate by Educational Attainment
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
ess ttla" l'llgh schoo diploma
High schoot graduates no cQlleg
m
.::i
:a
-,
+2ppt
+Oppt
-4ppt
-4.lppl 54.3'!4) In ~
2020
E g
Some college o associate de -re
B chelor degree and high r
8
2ppt
C
Ill
Q)
~
...Oppl
i5
• .4ppt 72 4 )
•2pp1
• ,2, l pp1 (IS2
J In N,t, 2020
-4ppt ----------------
Jan '20
Jul '21
J,;1n '20
Jul '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple data series extracted
using the Labor Force Statistics data series at httgs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: LFPR = Labor Force Participation Rate; ppt = percentage points. These data reflect the civilian
population that is 25 years and older. Changes in LFPR since January 2020 have not been tested for
statistical significance.
COVID-19 Recession: Nonfarm Payrolls
The number of nonfarm workers on payroll further contextualizes the relatively high
unemployment rates observed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unemployment rates and labor
force participation rates do not measure the extent of job disruption occurring during the
pandemic. By comparing the number of jobs40 occupied before the recession to recent data,
CRS can evaluate the extent of job loss and put unemployment rates into a broader economic
context.
Figure 16 displays the gap between the January 2020 and July 2021 employment levels for all
supersector industries in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).il In July
2021, there were 5.4 million fewer jobs occupied than there were in January 2020. The largest
portions of this gap were made up by the leisure and hospitality (1 .7 million), education and
health services (901,000), and government (736,000) sectors. While losses were concentrated
in a handful of major sectors, employment gaps existed for all sectors in July 2021.
Figure 16. Change in Employment by Sector
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40315
Page 20 of 30
Seasonally adjusted data for July 2021 ; relative to January 2020
Leisure and hos ita'lity
- ====------·
ar /ol)li 1n
21 lhan in I
.u:ary 2020
;
_______ _.
=-=·•·ii--iiiii.iii·i-=ii
Trade,. tran5pc;1rt;,1tlon
nd utilities
46 ,000 fewor }obs.
In July 2021 n an ,n
Ja.11uary 2020
Information
8,000 rower jobs
n July 2()21 lha.n
Jam1ary 2020
Education and health
setvlce.s
901 , 000 fewar j(JOS
in
ly 2021thi,n In
Jaooary 2020
Manufactu ng
26,000 feWer Jobs
Joly 202.1 lhan I
Jar11Jary 2020
In ng nd logg ng
52 000 I
er Joos "
Jyly 2021 ttlcln In
J rwary 2020
• •
■ •
--·-··
■■ •
•
•
Govemmen
7
,0-00 fewer job5
1"I July 2011 lfu,n ln
Januaf}' 2020
---■■■-
O her services
22 .000 fswe, fobs
July 2021 lhan In
January 2020
lnancial activities
22,000 row
jobs in
July 202 th n In
Jarnral')' 2020
-
10,000 j,otl!I
Pr-Dfvssional and
bu lne$:$ $etv ces
52 .000 ewer )obs
ifl Ju,ty 2021 than In
January 2020
Cons ruct on
1
000 ewer job.s
11' Juty 2021
an li"I
Janua')' 2020
5.4M fewer tota• jobs
ltian In January 2020
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple data series extracted
using the National Employment, Hours, and Earnings data series at httgs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: A single purple box reflects roughly 10,000 occupied jobs. Data for July 2021 are preliminary. "Other
services" is a BLS aggregation of three subsectors: repair and maintenance, personal and laundry services,
and membership associations and organizations.
Trends in Employment in the Private Sector
Figure 17 displays the monthly change in seasonally adjusted nonfarm jobs occupied from
January 2020 to July 2021 for six major sectors of the private sector.42 The trough in job loss
occurred in April 2020 for each sector in the figure. The leisure and hospitality sector
experienced greater job losses (-8.3 million) than any other sector. Additionally, the leisure and
hospitality sector had the largest employment gap in July 2021 (-1.7 million) compared to any
other sector in that month. The trade, transportation, and utilities sector had the second most
jobs lost (-3.4 million), followed by education and health services (-2.7 million), professional and
business services (-2.3 million), other services43 (-1.4 million), and manufacturing (-1.4 million).
In July 2021, all six of these sectors had fewer jobs occupied compared to their respective
employment levels in January 2020.
Figure 17. Change in Employment in the Private Sector
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40316
Page 21 of 30
+OM
-5M
-7M
OM
-2M
•5M
-7M
Education and health
services
0
Other ervlce
Leisure and hospl allty
JObs In April 2020
Professional and
business serv ces
• Jobs in April 2020
Man act r ng
Trade. transportation,
and ut llties
fK
Jan '20
Jul ·21
Jan '20
Jul '21
Jan '20
JIJI 21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Multiple data series extracted
using the National Employment, Hours, and Earnings data series at httgs://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: M = million. Data for June and July 2021 are preliminary. Changes in employment since January
2020 have not been tested for statistical significance.
Trends in Employment by Government Sector
Figure 18 displays the monthly change in seasonally adjusted nonfarm jobs occupied from
January 2020 to July 2021 for three levels of government employment: federal, state, and local.
While the number of federal government jobs occupied increased during 2020 (peaking at
+309,000 jobs in August),44 state and local governments both experienced significant job
losses. Local governments experienced the largest job losses of any government level, peaking
at 1.2 million jobs lost in May. There were 562,000 fewer local government jobs occupied in July
2021 than in January 2020. State government jobs fell throughout 2020 and peaked in October
(-340,000 jobs). In July 2021, state government employment was 210,000 jobs below its
January 2020 employment level.
Figure 18. Change in Employment in the Public Sector
Seasonally adjusted monthly data, January 2020 to July 2021
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40317
Page 22 of 30
Federal
Staie
Local
+500K
0
in Aug1X>1 2()20
OM
-SOOK
1r, October 2020
•iM
• I
In May 2(120
Jan '20
Jul '21
Jan 120
Jul '2
Jan '20
ul '21
Source: Created by CRS using data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series CES9091000001 ,
CES9092000001, and CES9093000001 extracted using the National Employment, Hours, and Earnings data
series at htti:2s://www.bls.gov/data/.
Notes: M = million. Data for June and July 2021 are preliminary. Changes in employment since January
2020 have not been tested for statistical significance.
Data Limitations and Caveats
National level data presented in this rnport are from the Current Population Survey (CPS) or
Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, and state level data are from the Local Area
Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) program. The CPS is a sample survey of about 60,000
households conducted by the Census Bureau for BLS. The CES is a sample survey of about
144,000 business and government agencies conducted by BLS. LAUS is a BLS program that
calculates state-level unemployment rates using multiple data sources, including the CPS and
CES.45
Estimates from all three sources are subject to sampling and nonsampling error.46 Sampling
error occurs when the survey sample is not representative of the underlying population, while
nonsampling error describes errors often associated with data collection.47 Sampling error is a
result of statistical theory that underlies any estimate generated through surveys. While the CPS
and CES samples are selected to be representative of the nation, the possibility remains that it
does not accurately estimate certain nationwide statistics.48 Nonsampling error refers to all
sources of error that are not due to sampling. They can result from incorrect or biased collection
and processing of the data. For example, nonsampling error can occur if a surveyor incorrectly
records responses or a respondent incorrectly responds to a question.
COVID 19 Pandemic-Related Data Issues
The COVID-19 pandemic increased nonsampling error in the CPS and CES due to a number of
factors. For example, BLS reported that both surveys experienced lower response rates.49 BLS
additionally noted that business closures initially interfered with the ability for businesses to
respond to CES inquiries. (The bureau has since made statements affirming the robustness of
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40318
Page 23 of 30
its CPS and CES estimates despite these lower response rates. 50) Furthermore, BLS detected
an error in its CPS categorization procedures that likely underestimated unemployment early in
the recession.51 Specifically, large numbers of workers were classified as employed but not at
work when they should have been recorded as unemployed on temporary layoff.
Per agency policy, BLS did not adjust CPS records, but it did provide adjusted estimates of the
unemployment rate. This report does not use these adjusted estimates as they are not official
BLS estimates. BLS estimated that its categorization error underestimated seasonally adjusted
unemployment by roughly 0.9 percentage points in March 2020, 4.8 points in April, 3.1 in May,
1.2 in June, 0.9 in July, 0.7 in August, 0.4 in September, 0.3 in October, 0.4 in November, 0.6 in
December, 0.6 in January 2021, 0.5 in February 2021, 0.4 in March 2021, 0.3 in April 2021, 0.3
in May 2021 , and 0.2 in June 2021 .52 In July 2021, the error underestimated seasonally
adjusted unemployment by an estimated 0.3 percentage points.fil These estimates evaluate
what the impact would be in the worst-case scenario, as the true impact is uncertain. BLS
released a statement regarding the underestimate, noting that, "these assumptions probably
overstate the size of the misclassification error." In 2020, BLS began making efforts to correct
the classification error during data collection and processing.54
Additionally, BLS identified a data processing error in the CES, which began in July 2020 but
remained undetected. The error unintentionally caused some businesses to be inappropriately
included in the sample and used for estimates. BLS has since determined the impacts of this
error were insignificant.55
LAUS was impacted by both the low response rate and the categorization error due to its
connection with the CPS and CES. Considering that LAUS is dependent on a number of other
data sources that were impacted by COVID-19 in their own right, the net effect of the pandemic
on LAUS estimates is unknown.56
General Data Caveats
Other data considerations include the following:
• Lack of seasonally adjusted data. Seasonally adjusted data are published by BLS for
selected labor force indicators to better account for seasonality in the trends. 57 Without
seasonal adjustments, it is difficult to distinguish between trends related to the recession
and seasonal trends. Where adjusted data are not available, this report presents
unadjusted data that do not account for underlying seasonal variation.
• Reference week. In general, CPS data are collected for the calendar week containing
the 12th of the month. CES data are collected for the pay period including the 12th of the
month. This could lead to incongruity between actual labor force conditions over the
course of a month and the conditions observed, as well as inconsistencies between
CES-reported data and CPS-reported data.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40319
Page 24 of 30
• CPS and LAUS unemployment rate comparability. While the LAUS program uses the
same unemployment concepts as the CPS and uses the CPS as an input, LAUS
estimates are based on multiple sources (including administrative data). Consequently,
CPS and LAUS estimates are not directly comparable.
The three Research Assistants in CRS's Domestic Social Policy Division were responsible for
the analysis and writing of this report, under the guidance of Gene Falk, Specialist in Social
Policy. Former CRS Research Assistant Jameson A. Carter contributed to this report. Questions
from congressional staff should be directed to Mr. Falk.
Footnotes
1.
The National Bureau of Economic Research; see httRs://www.nber.org~Y.cles.html for their
historical series of expansions and contractions. For more on their process for determining
expansions and contractions, see
httRs://www.nber.org~Y.Cles/recessionsfag.html#:-:text=What%20is%20an%20exRansion%
3F,more%20than%20a%20few%20months.&text=ExRansion%20is%20the%20normal%20
state,economy%3B%20most%20recessions%20are%20brief.
J.
The Great Recession was a particularly long recession, characterized by a steady and
large increase in unemployment and unprecedented decreases in labor force participation.
The unemployment rates observed during the Great Recession, however, never surpassed
those of the early 1980s. For more on labor force metrics during the Great Recession see
CRS Report R45330, Labor Market Patterns Since 2007, by Sarah A. Donovan and Marc
Labonte.
1-
Defined as the percentage of persons in the overall adult population who either have a job
or are looking for a job.
~-
For more information on the determination of this end date, see
httP-s://www.nber.org/news/business-cycle-dating-committee-announcement-julY.-19-2021 .
_a.
See CRS Insight IN11388, COV/O-19: U.S. Economic Effects, by Rena S. Miller and Marc
Labonte.
§ .
For a list of state-level stay-at-home orders and estimates of the impact of these orders on
risk mitigation, see Amanda Moreland, Christine Herlihy, and Michael A. Tynan et al.,
Timing of State and Territorial COV/O-19 Stay-at-Home Orders and Changes in Population
Movement, Centers for Disease Control, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report Vol. 69 No.
35, Washington, DC, September 4, 2020, pp. 1198-1203,
httQs://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6935a2.htm?s cid=mm6935a2 w.
z.
World Health Organization, Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COV/O-19), Situation Report 51,
March 11, 2020, p. 1, httP-s://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-
regorts/20200311-sitreP--51-covid-19.gdf.
li-
See CRS Insight IN11456, COVID-19: Measuring UnemP-,loy_ment, by Lida R. Weinstock.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40320
Page 25 of 30
.2,
For BLS impact summaries of COVID-19 on these measures, see
httP-s://www.bls.gov/covid 19/effects-of-covid-19-P-andemic-and-resP-onse-on-the-
em P-IQY.ment-situation-news-release. htm.
10.
For a description of this error, see httP-s://www.bls.gov/ces/notices/2021/ces-samP-le-
rotation-issue-caused-by.:Randemic-related-challenges-to-enrollment.htm.
11.
Defined here as an economic metric that increases in quantity during an economic
expansion and decreases in quantity during a recession.
12.
Job openings are defined as the number of positions that are open on the last business day
of the reference month. Hires include all additions to an employer's payroll during the entire
reference month. Quits are defined as the number of workers who left their jobs voluntarily,
with retirements and transfers excluded. For more information on these metrics, see
httRs://www.bls.gov/news.release/jolts.toc.htm.
13.
Throughout this report, peak refers to the highest level of unemployment between January
2020 and July 2021. It does not account for months outside this range.
14.
For information on the differences between the congressional response to the most recent
recession compared to the congressional response during the Great Recession in the
Unemployment Insurance system, see CRS Report R46472, Com12.aring the Congressional
Res12.onse to the Great Recession and the COVID-19-Related Recession: UnemlJ_loy_ment
Insurance (UI) Provisions, by Katelin P. Isaacs and Julie M. Whittaker.
1s.
For more information on the determination of this end date, see
httRs://www.nber.org/news/business-cY.cle-dating-committee-announcement-julY.-19-2021 .
16.
CRS analysis of BLS data, which can be found at
httRs://www.bls.gov/webaRRS{legacy~RSatab11.htm. Workers on temporary layoff declined
from 18.0 million in April 2020 to 1.2 million in July 2021 as the number of permanent job
losers increased from 2.6 million in April 2020 to 3.7 million in July 2021.
17 • For CBO's 10-year economic projections of unemployment rates, as of July 2021, see
httRS ://www.cbo.gov/ about/Rrod ucts/budget-economic-data#4.
1s.
For more information, see CRS Insight IN11605, COVID-19 and Direct Pay_ments:
Com12.arison of First and Second Round of "Stimulus Checks" to the Third Round in the
American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA; P.L. 117-2)., by Margot L. Crandall-Hallick.
19.
For more information, see CRS Report R46681, USDA Nutrition Assistance Programs:
Res12.onse to the COVID-19 Pandemic, by Randy Alison Aussenberg and Kara Clifford
Billings.
20.
For more information, see CRS Report R46680, The American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
.(ARPA; P.L. 117-2): Title IX, Subtitle G-Tax Provisions Related to Promoting Economic
SecuritY., by Molly F. Sherlock, Margot L. Crandall-Hallick, and Jane G. Gravelle.
21. Miguel G. Casado, Britta Glennon, and Julia Lane et al., The Effect of Fiscal Stimulus:
Evidence from COVID-19, NBER, Working Paper 27576, Cambridge, MA, August 2020,
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40321
Page 26 of 30
httP-s://www.nber.org{ruu:iers/w27576. For more on this topic and theories of recessionary
policy, also see CRS Report R46460, Fiscal Policy_and Recove(Y.. from the COVID-19
Recession, by Jane G. Gravelle and Donald J. Marples.
22.
For more information, see CRS Report R46397, SBA Pay_check Protection Program (PPP).
Loan Forgiveness: In Brief, by Robert Jay Dilger and Sean Lowry.
23.
For more information, see CRS Report R46687, Current Status of Unemg.Joy_ment
Insurance (UI) Benefits: Permanent-Law Programs and COVID-19 Pandemic ResQonse, by
Julie M. Whittaker and Katelin P. Isaacs.
24.
The study referenced here showed that UI extensions during the Great Recession
increased the unemployment rate of 0.4 percentage points. Henry S. Farber and Robert G.
Valletta, Do Extended Unemployment Benefits Lengthen Unemployment Spells? Evidence
from Recent Cycles in the U.S. Labor Market, NBER, Working Paper 19048, Cambridge,
MA, May 2013, httP-s://www.nber.org[Qagers/w19048.
2s.
For more information, see CRS Insight IN11679, States O{1.ting Out of COVID-19
Unem12.loy_ment Insurance (UI) Agreements, by Julie M. Whittaker and Katelin P. Isaacs.
26.
Peter Ganong et al., Spending and Job Search Impacts of Expanded Unemployment
Benefits: Evidence from Administrative Micro Data, Becker Friedman Institute, Working
Paper No. 2021-19, Chicago, IL, February 2021 , httP-s://bfi.uchicago.edu/wR.:
contenUuP-loads/2021/02/BFI WP 2021-19.gdf.
21.
There are many differences in labor force statistics observed during the Great Recession,
its aftermath, and the COVID-19 recession. For more on this and for information on labor
market patterns since 2007, see CRS Report R45330, Labor Market Patterns Since 2007,
by Sarah A. Donovan and Marc Labonte.
2s.
Guido Matias Cortes and Eliza Forsythe, "The Heterogeneous Labor Market lmgacts of the
Covid-19 Pandemic," Upjohn Institute, May 2020; and Robert Fairlie, "The Impact of Covid-
19 on Small Business Owners: Evidence of Early-Stage Losses from the April 2020 Current
Population Survey," NBER Working Paper No. 27309, June 2020.
29.
Felipe Lozano-Rojas et al., "Is the Cure Worse than the Problem Itself? Immediate Labor
Market Effects of COVID-19 Case Rates and School Closures in the U.S.," NBER Working
Paper No. 27127, May 2020; Eliza Forsythe et al., "Labor Demand in the Time of COVID-
19: Evidence from Vacancy Postings and UI Claims," NBER Working Paper No. 27061 ,
April 2020.
30.
Matthew Dey and Mark Loewenstein, "How many workers are employed in sectors directly
affected by COVID-19 shutdowns, where do they work, and how much do they earn?"
Monthly Labor Review, April 2020.
31. Austan Goolsbee and Chad Syverson, "Fear, lockdown, and diversion: comparing drivers
of pandemic economic decline 2020," NBER Working Paper No. 27432, June 2020.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40322
Page 27 of 30
32.
Sumedha Gupta et al., "Effects of Social Distancing Policy on Labor Market Outcomes,"
NBER Working Paper No. 2780, May 2020.
33. These data are not seasonally adjusted and do not account for the likely seasonal variation
in employment within the education and health services sector.
34.
Alexander Bartik et al., "Measuring the labor market at the onset of the COVID-19 crisis,"
NBER Working Paper No. 27613, July 2020; and Guido Matias Cortes and Eliza Forsythe,
"The Heterogeneous Labor Market lmQacts of the Covid-19 Pandemic," Upjohn Institute
Working Paper, May 2020.
35.
The number of workers working part-time for economic reasons increased from 4.4 million
in February 2020 to 4.5 million in July 2021 on a seasonally adjusted basis. See
httr:2s://www.bls.gov/web/emr:2sit/cpseea07 .htm.
36.
See httQs://www.bls.gov/news.release/emQsit.t15.htm for U-6 unemployment rates. U-6 is a
measure of the total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force,
plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percentage of the civilian labor
force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force. For more on this measure, see
CRS In Focus IF10443, Introduction to U.S. Economy_: Unem,:l./oy_ment, by Lida R.
Weinstock.
37 • Black, Asian, and White are the three racial categories used in BLS, Table A2: Employment
status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age. See
httr:2s:llwww.bls.gov/news.release/emQsit.t02.htm.
38.
For definitions of the labor force, labor force participation rate, unemployment rate, and
other relevant terms, see httr:2s://www.bls.gov/cps/definitions.htm#lfQr.
39.
See Michael Dotsey, Shigeru Fujita, and Leena Rudanko, Where is Everybody? The
Shrinking Labor Force Participation Rate, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Economic
Insights Vol 2. Issue 4, Philadelphia, PA, 2017, pp. 17-24,
httQs://www.QhiladelQhiafed.org/-/media/frbQ/assets/economy/articles/economic-
insights/2017 /g4/eig417 .pdf.
40. Ajob is defined as a paid position at a nonfarm business that is currently occupied. This is
different from a job opening, which is defined as a position at a business establishment that
is not occupied.
41. Sectors are defined by the NAICS and can be found at
httgs://www.bls.gov/iag[tgs/iag index naics.htm.
42.
For the purpose of this visualization, CRS selected the six private sectors with the largest
(i.e., most negative) average losses in seasonally adjusted nonfarm jobs from January
2020 to July 2021.
43.
"Other services" is a BLS aggregation of three subsectors: repair and maintenance,
personal and laundry services, and membership associations and organizations. Sectors
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40323
Page 28 of 30
are defined by the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and can be
found at httRs://www.bls.gov/iagltgs/iag index naics.htm.
44.
This peak could be due to temporary employment for those conducting activities related to
the 2020 Decennial Census.
45.
In addition to the CPS, LAUS uses the Current Employment Statistics survey, state
Unemployment Insurance claims counts, the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages
program, and data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey and Population
Estimates Program; httRs://www.bls.gov/lau/laumthd.htm .
.4§.
For further discussion of error, see the "Reliability of the Estimates" section of the
Employment Situation report's Technical Note at
httRs://www.bls.gov/news.release/emRsit.tn.htm. For a description of LAUS estimation
procedures, see httgs://www.bls.gov/lau/laumthd.htm.
47.
For more information, see httRs://www.bls.gov/ogub/hom/toRic/error-measurements.htm.
48.
For more information, see httgs://www.bls.gov/oRub/hom/togic/samgling.htm.
49.
See the FAQ BLS produced on this topic for more on the impact of COVID-19 on data
collection by month at httRs://www.bls.gov/covid19/home.htm.
50.
See httgs://www.bls.gov/covid19/emRlov.ment-situation-covid 19-fag-agril-2020.htm.
51.
See CRS Insight IN11456, COVID-19: Measuring Unemg/oy_ment, by Lida R. Weinstock.
52 • See httRs://www.bls.gov/covid 19/effects-of-covid-19-Randemic-and-resP-onse-on-the-
emglov.ment-situation-news-release. htm.
53.
See httRs://www.bls.gov/covid19/emP-lov.ment-situation-covid 19-fag-mav.-2021 . htm.
54.
Among other protocols, the Census Bureau monitored survey responses in August and
marked those they felt could be misclassified. These responses were then reevaluated. For
more on BLS and Census efforts to reduce the misclassification, see
httgs://www.bls.gov/covid 19/emP-lov.ment-situation-covid 19-fag-august-2020 .htm#gues9.
55.
For the BLS notice on this error, see httRs://www.bls.gov/ces/notices/2021 /ces-samgle-
rotation-issue-caused-bY.:Randemic-related-challenges-to-enrollment.htm.
56.
For more on the impacts of COVID-19 on LAUS and its inputs, see
httgs://www.bls.gov/covid 19/effects-of-covid-19-gandemic-on-em P-1 ov.ment-and-
u nemglov.ment-statistics. htm.
57.
See CPS and LAUS documentation for more on seasonal adjustment at
httRS://www.bls.gov/cgs/seasona I-adj ustment-methodologv.. htm and
httgs ://www.bis.gov/la u/lauseas. htm.
Disclaimer:
These documents were prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff to
congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of Congress.
Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of information that has
been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS's institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the
United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced
and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40324
Page 29 of 30
material from a thfrd party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use
copyrighted material.
Case 3:21-md-02992-GPC-MSB Document 590-9 Filed 10/17/25 PageID.40325
Page 30 of 30File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.casd.709615.590.9.pdf
- Size
- 24,570,212 bytes
- SHA-256
- 34d629546a46f3299a0dff24ac1e6270c7189d7deb47b2e86f4b549c625a90a1
- Original
- PACER (login required)