On January 10, 2020, the United States imposed additional sanctions on Iran in the wake of recent tensions between the countries and the continuing broader “maximum pressure” campaign on Iran. Specifically, President Trump signed Executive Order 13902 (E.O. 13902) authorizing the imposition of secondary sanctions on certain transactions involving Iran’s construction, mining, manufacturing, and textiles industries. This follows Executive Order 13871 from May 2019, which authorized secondary sanctions on Iran’s iron, steel, aluminum and copper sectors. Concurrently with the issuance of E.O. 13902, the U.S. Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) added to the Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons List (SDN List) several major Iran-related metal and mining companies, Chinese and Seychelles entities plus a related vessel involved in the Iranian metals trade, and Iranian regime officials.

On December 26, 2019, the Department of State published in the Federal Register an interim final rule amending the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) to define “activities that are not exports, reexports, retransfers, or temporary imports,” and specifically to clarify that the electronic transmission and storage of properly secured unclassified technical data via foreign communications infrastructure does not constitute an export. The rule also defines “access information” and revises the definition of “release” to address the provision of access information to an unauthorized foreign person.

Earlier this week, the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals (CBCA) released its Fiscal Year (FY) 2019 report. The CBCA docketed 418 new matters in FY 2019, which represents a modest increase from the 409 docketed in FY 2018. Prior to FY 2018, the CBCA had experienced docket decreases for each of the previous three years. For only the second time since FY 2014, however, the number of new cases docketed during the year exceeded the number of appeals the CBCA resolved. This latter statistic indicates that matters may proceed more slowly during 2020.

On January 13, 2020, the U.S. Department of the Treasury issued two final rules for the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) implementing the Foreign Investment Risk Review Modernization Act (FIRRMA), which was enacted on August 13, 2018. The final rules largely adopt the proposed rules published on September 17, 2019, with several key clarifications and modifications. As discussed previously, FIRRMA has resulted in two separate rulemakings that expand CFIUS’ jurisdiction to include (i) certain non-controlling investments in U.S. businesses engaged in critical technology, critical infrastructure, and sensitive personal data, and (ii) certain real estate transactions. The final rules will be published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2020 and will go into effect February 13, 2020 (Effective Date), with one exception described below. We anticipate that the Treasury Department will publish a separate rule concerning filing fees soon.

On Dec. 20, 2019, President Trump signed into law a new spending deal that includes an historic five-year extension of the biodiesel blenders tax credit. The deal reinstates the blenders tax credit for biodiesel and renewable diesel retroactively from its expiration on Jan. 1, 2018, through Dec. 31, 2022. The legislation also includes a “special rule” that directs the Treasury Department to develop a one-time claims process to speed payment of the credit for years 2018 and 2019, when it lapsed.

On January 10, 2020, the White House Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (85 Fed. Reg. 1684) announcing major proposed revisions to the regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The revisions propose sweeping streamlining and modernizing changes to the environmental review and permitting process for federal projects, including many infrastructure and energy projects. Most significantly, the proposal would eliminate the need to study a project’s cumulative or indirect environmental effects; exclude many projects from NEPA review; and shorten the time for completing NEPA review and approvals. The proposed changes mark the first comprehensive update to the NEPA regulations in over 40 years.

On December 31, 2019, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas overturned a $2 million fine imposed by the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) against ExxonMobil Corp., and its U.S. subsidiaries ExxonMobil Development Company and ExxonMobil Oil Corp. (collectively, “Exxon”). This marked a rare court decision overturning an OFAC sanctions penalty. The Court’s decision focused not on the subject of the sanctions but addressed whether OFAC had provided proper notice of its sanctions requirements.

Companies anxiously awaiting the release of “emerging technology” export control rules now have an initial interim rule indicating how the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is likely to proceed. Specifically, the interim rule related to software for training AI appears to be a narrowly tailored rule covering a specific type of AI software related to specific national security concerns involving geospatial imagery. While there are some questions on the scope of what is covered by “geospatial imagery,” comments on the rule due on March 6 will allow industry to provide input and hopefully obtain formal clarification once the final rule is issued. Additionally, the interim rule highlights that the new “emerging technology” rules will not be a “one and done” but rather a rolling series of rules on specific technologies warranting control.

On December 11, 2019, DFS published a proposal to create a public list of approved virtual currencies and a self-certification methodology for holders of NY Bitlicenses and New York trust companies approved to engaged in a virtual currency business (together, VC Licensees) to offer to New York consumers virtual currencies without the need for additional approvals of the DFS.

In late December, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released the “Fall 2019 Unified Agenda of Regulatory Actions” just a few days before the Calendar turned to the year 2020. (It should be noted that the Spring Agenda was not released until June 24, 2019.) Individual agency agendas were published in the Federal Register by several agencies and executive departments on December 26, 2019. The entire agenda, which is a survey of all current and projected rule-making actions that federal agencies and departments are planning over the next 12 months, is available at such government websites as regulations.gov. The Agenda provides valuable insights into the actions these agencies believe to be most important. This survey will largely concentrate on environmental regulatory developments, although other matters are worth noting.

On November 29, 2019, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an extensive final rule that made numerous revisions to its small business regulations, including limitations on subcontracting and compliance with small business subcontracting plans. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 65647-65666). This final rule, which becomes effective on December 30, 2019, implements provisions of the National Defense Authorization Acts (NDAA) of 2016 and 2017 and the Recovery Improvements for Small Entities After Disaster Act of 2015. The final rule makes multiple changes to the SBA’s regulations, the most significant of which are described below.

The New Year will bring with it many new legal requirements for California employers. Although much of the focus has been on the passage of AB 5 and its new, onerous standards for independent contractor classification, there are numerous other laws that employers must be aware of and take measures to comply with in advance of their January 1, 2020 effective date.

On November 8, 2019, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an extensive proposed rule that would make numerous revisions to its small business regulations, including the Mentor Protégé Programs, the current limits on the use of joint ventures, and the size status certification rules for orders issued under multiple award contracts. (See 84 Fed. Reg. 60846-60881.) This proposed rule is a direct response to President Trump’s January 30, 2017 Executive Order (No. 13771) designed to reduce unnecessary and burdensome regulations and to control costs associated with regulations. The SBA’s review of its regulations led to dozens of proposed regulation changes, the most significant of which are described below.

On November 5, 2019, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the formation of a new Procurement Collusion Strike Force (PCSF) focusing on deterring, detecting, investigating and prosecuting antitrust crimes, such as bid-rigging conspiracies and related fraudulent schemes, which undermine competition in government procurement, grant and program funding.

On August 27, 2019, FERC and NERC staffs issued a Joint Staff White Paper on Notices of Penalty Pertaining to Violations of Critical Infrastructure Protection Reliability Standards. In that White Paper, FERC/NERC staffs propose departing from FERC’s historical practice of withholding most material details regarding CIP Reliability Standard violations. FERC has recently signaled an appetite to depart from that practice by disclosing the names of a handful of allegedly violating electric utilities in response to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests.

Imagine the following hypothetical: You are a Government contractor with cost-reimbursement contracts where the Government pays the costs of performance. You know that you cannot ask the Government to pay for lobbying costs (e.g., the costs of consultants who work to influence the outcomes of elections or legislation, and the costs of political contributions). Indeed, applicable regulations specifically call out such costs as being unallowable. Accordingly, you identify them as such in your incurred cost proposal. Suppose you also have employees who oversee some of these unallowable activities and interact with the consultants engaging them. In fact, if not for these unallowable activities, you would not have incurred a portion of these employees’ salaries. Are such salary costs unallowable? And if they are, will you be subject to penalties for requesting that the Government reimburse you for these costs? These are the types of questions addressed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Raytheon Co. v. Sec. of Def., 2018-2371 (Oct. 18, 2019). The court’s conclusions—based on a questionable interpretation of FAR 31.001—upend what had been established precedent at the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) ruling these costs were not expressly unallowable.

On October 3, 2019, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing procedures for imposing civil penalties for violations of DOE’s 10 CFR Part 810 regulations (Part 810). Part 810 implements section 57b.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) (42 U.S.C. 2077) and controls the export of unclassified nonpublic nuclear technology.

In an age of heightened litigation risk and a motivated Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC), private funds need to be increasingly mindful of secondary liability risks, especially when evaluating costs and benefits of potential portfolio company ownership structures. Given the uncertainties, firms must take steps to mitigate such risks—including documenting oversight, observing corporate formalities, ensuring the creation and implementation of strong internal controls, and adequately training professionals who serve as directors.

Digital assets such as tokens and virtual currencies continue to garner market interest and press coverage, but significant questions remain about their regulation—are digital assets securities, commodities, banking products, something else? How are their creators regulated, and what are the regulations and tax rules that apply to owners and intermediaries? The summer of 2019 has brought a few helpful clarifications. In this evolving regulatory environment, the U.S. Congress is discussing future legislative steps, and on July 30, 2019, the Senate Banking Committee held a hearing “Examining Regulatory Frameworks for Digital Currencies and Blockchain.”

On August 1, 2019, the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA) held that the Air Force should bear the costs associated with a mutual mistake of fact in a contract between DynCorp International LLC (DynCorp) and the Air Force. This result suggests that the theory of mutual mistake of fact remains a viable one for contractors to consider and pursue.

On August 14, 2019, the U.S. Commerce Department added China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) and three of its affiliates, China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC), China Nuclear Power Technology Research Institute Co. Ltd., and Suzhou Nuclear Power Research Institute Co. Ltd., to the Commerce Department’s “Entity List.” Effective immediately, both U.S. and non-U.S. companies are prohibited from exporting or transferring to the listed Chinese entities any goods, software or technology that is subject to control under the U.S. Export Administrations Regulations (EAR) (including EAR99 items not on the Commerce Control List). Licenses from the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) are subject to a presumption of denial.

On July 25, 2019, Governor Andrew Cuomo signed the Stop Hacks and Improve Electronic Data Security Act (the SHIELD Act), which broadens the scope of existing New York breach notification and data protection laws that trigger notification to affected consumers. The New York Attorney General will enforce the SHIELD Act (S.5575B/A.5635), which extends the reach of New York law breach notification requirements to any person or entity with private information of a New York resident, regardless of whether the breached company conducts business in New York State. This provision could significantly extend the reach of those companies that will be subject to New York reporting requirements. The law also broadens the definition of breach, expanding a data breach to any situation involving unauthorized “access” to confidential information regardless of whether such data is “acquired.” The SHIELD Act does not create a private cause of action; however, the New York Attorney General may bring an action for civil penalties or to enjoin unlawful practices. The SHIELD Act also expands the time period within which the New York Attorney General may bring an action from two to three years. Penalties for violation of the data breach provisions can be imposed in the amount of the greater or $5,000 or up to $20 per instance of a failed notification, up to $250,000. Penalties for failing to adopt reasonable safeguards can be imposed up to $5,000 per violation.

On July 18, 2019, the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) issued an interim final rule adjusting the revenue-based size standards for small business to account for inflation. The rule affects all small businesses, and will take effect on August 19, 2019.

At its July 2019 Open Meeting, the FCC adopted revised rules for the Educational Broadband Service (EBS). While the service will continue to have “Educational” in its name, the FCC took several significant steps to eliminate the long-standing education requirements from its rules.

On June 6, 2019, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a decision in the matter of Veterans4You, Inc., deciding that the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) must apply the “Rule of Two” even when it procures goods and services through other government agencies.

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) on June 5 issued a Supplemental Federal Register Notice announcing a final interpretive rule (the “Rule”) asserting its authority to reclassify certain radioactive waste from reprocessing associated with Cold War-era nuclear weapons production activity. The Rule is nearly identical to a draft version published for comment in October 2018 (the “Draft Rule”).

For many years, lessors of space to the federal government have struggled with the remedies available to them when the government continues to occupy the space after the expiration of the lease. Such “holdover” tenancies occur with some frequency, and the courts and boards have adopted disparate views with respect to the damages available to the lessor for such a holdover tenancy.

The California Consumer Privacy Act of 2018 (CCPA) goes into effect on January 1, 2020. The Act grants “consumers” (any California resident regardless of whether there is a customer or any other relationship with the covered business) five new rights respecting their personal information.¹

Since January 2017, the IRS has significantly limited the ability of employers to submit individually designed plan documents for approval under the IRS’s determination letter program. Newly established plans can still be submitted, and existing plans that have previously received a favorable determination letter can be submitted if the plan is being terminated, but all other existing plans have been prohibited from seeking IRS approval.

Wednesday, May 8, 2019 was an important day for the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC or “Commission”). First, the CFTC’s Division of Enforcement (DOE) published an Enforcement Manual, providing market participants for the first time ever with one-stop-shop guidance on the Commission’s enforcement procedures. Second, CFTC Chairman J. Christopher Giancarlo testified before the Senate Committee on Appropriations about the Commission’s 2020 budget request. Both events confirm what many have come to suspect over the last year: as part of its efforts to ensure that the U.S. derivatives market remains “the world’s best regulated,” enforcement will continue as one of the Commission’s top priorities going forward.

Guidance for evaluating corporate compliance programs. The guidance is intended to provide insight into compliance program factors that prosecutors will considerFebruary 2017 guidance documentrecent thinking on effective corporate compliance programs, as revealed by Assistant Attorney General Brian Benczkowski’s keynote address at the Ethics and Compliance Initiative (ECI) 2019 Annual Impact Conference. In his address, AAG Benczkowski reaffirmed the central role of corporate compliance programs in the context of DOJ’s charging decisions. According to the Guidance, compliance programs will be significant in “determining the appropriate (1) form of any resolution or prosecution; (2) monetary penalty, if any; and (3) compliance obligations contained in any corporate criminal resolution (e.g., monitorship or reporting obligations).”

Under the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) “late is late” rule, a government contractor’s proposal must be received by the government by the time stated in the solicitation. If a proposal document is even one second late, it cannot be accepted by the government. The FAR provides very limited exceptions to this rule. Specifically, it states that where a proposal is received before the award and the contracting officer determines that accepting it will not delay the procurement, the government may accept the untimely proposal if: (1) it was received electronically at the initial point of entry to the government infrastructure at least one working day before the proposal submission deadline, or (2) if it was under government control before the proposal submission deadline, or (3) if only one proposal was received. These narrow FAR-based exceptions apply infrequently.

It’s January 2, 2020, and you just received 25 requests asking for disclosure about your data collection, use and sharing practices and for a copy of the specific pieces of personal information you collected about the requesting individuals during the last 12 months. You have 45 days to respond. What do you do? Close down the business so you can find the information? By being prepared you can avoid a crisis.

U.S. environmental authorities, concerned about the prevalence of PFAS, are considering and taking steps to restrict usage, potentially affecting a wide variety of products and processes, and to require owners and operators of properties that have the potential to be contaminated with PFAS to investigate and, if necessary, perform remediation. Businesses and consultants are encouraged to be alert to these developments, which could give rise to litigation risks, supply chain disruptions, and a reconsideration of remedial strategies and objectives at sites with PFAS contamination.

Internal Revenue Code Section 83(i) was introduced as part as of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. Under Section 83(i), if certain requirements are satisfied, employees of private companies who receive nonstatutory stock options (NSOs) or restricted stock units (RSUs) may elect to defer federal income tax on the exercise of the NSOs or settlement of the RSUs for up to five (5) years (referred to as an 83(i) election).

SEC Rule 10b-5(b) makes it unlawful “[t]o make any untrue statement of a material fact . . . in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” The Court in Janus Capital Group Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, 564 U.S. 135, 142 (2011) limited “maker” liability under 10b-5(b) to “the person or entity with ultimate authority over the statement, including its content and whether and how to communicate it.” In Lorenzo v. Securities & Exchange Commission, No. 17-1077, 2019 WL 1369839 (S. Ct. Mar. 27, 2019), the Court considers whether one who is not a “maker” of a false statement under 10b-5(b) can nonetheless be primarily liable under 10b-5(a) or 10b-5(c) for disseminating the false statement, knowing it to be false.

On Wednesday, March 27, 2019, U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation and Space, convened a hearing on “The State of Airline Safety: Federal Oversight of Commercial Aviation” in response to the recent tragedies in Ethiopia and Indonesia and the subsequent grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX aircraft. The panel of government witnesses invited to testify and answer questions included Daniel Elwell, Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Calvin Scovel, Inspector General of the Department of Transportation (DOT), and Robert Sumwalt, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). The subcommittee intends to hold an additional hearing at a later date and plans to include a Boeing representative.

On March 7, 2019, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued its much-anticipated Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for amending the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regulations for exemptions from overtime pay requirements for the so-called “white collar” exemptions. The Obama Administration had previously published a regulation that would have more than doubled the minimum salary level for executive, administrative, and professional employees to be classified as exempt from overtime and minimum wage requirements (the EAP exemption) and increased the minimum salary level by a third for highly compensated employees (the HCE exemption), with further automatic increases every three years (the “2016 Final Rule”). On November 22, 2016, just nine days before that regulation would have become effective, a United States District Court in Texas issued a nationwide preliminary injunction against enforcement of the 2016 Final Rule, followed by a permanent injunction on Aug. 31, 2017. The current salary minimum for the EAP exemption is $23,660, below the federal poverty level for a family of four, and there was widespread support among both employers and employees for increasing that minimum. Until publication of the NPRM, however, uncertainty reigned about what level the Trump Administration’s DOL would propose. For EAP employees, the DOL has proposed a minimum salary level almost at the midpoint between level sought by the 2016 Final Rule and the current level, and it has proposed raising the minimum salary for highly compensated employees above the salary level first stated in the 2016 Final Rule.

In two recent decisions, OHA discussed some of the factors that may differentiate whether an LOI triggers SBA’s “present effect rule” and creates an affiliation between parties negotiating the acquisition of a small business. In Size Appeal of Telecommunications Support Services, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5953 (2018), OHA determined that the LOI did not create an affiliation, and in Size Appeal of Enhanced Vision Systems, Inc., SBA No. SIZ-5978 (2018), OHA found that the LOI did create an affiliation and drew several distinctions between the two fact patterns.

In September 2017, OFCCP held three nationwide town hall meetings. The well-attended events provided a forum for contractors to express concerns and challenges with compliance with the rules and regulations OFCCP enforces, including Executive Order 11246 (Equal Employment Opportunity), Section 503 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Vietnam Era Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act (VEVRAA). Since then, OFCCP has seen leadership changes and has issued a number of pro-contractor directives and changes that can be traced back to feedback received at the town halls and elsewhere from the contractor community.

Introduction
On February 19, 2019, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a rule that would generally permit all issuers to “jump the gun”—that is, to make offers to certain institutional investors prior to the filing of a registration statement. This rule would enable any issuer, as well as its proposed underwriters, to “test the waters” to see to what extent these institutions might be interested in investing in the company before a registration statement is filed.

As calendar year companies complete their Compensation Discussion & Analysis (CD&A) in their proxy statement for spring shareholder meetings, they may wish to consider the following tips for a favorable Say-on-Pay result:
 
1.  Run the ISS CEO Pay-for-Performance Test Before Year End Decisions Are MadeThe pay-for-performance test of Institutional Shareholder Services, in part, compares TSR and CEO compensation against an ISS-constructed peer group. If relative shareholder return ranks in the lower tier of that peer group, ISS may criticize CEO pay that ranks at or above the peer group median and issue a no-vote recommendation. Companies should carefully consider the risk of a no-vote before setting year end pay. Such results may also behoove companies to summarize next year decisions, to the extent made, for helpful context.

On January 24, 2019, the Court issued its decision in Sparksoft Corporation v. United States, No. 18-1708C, holding that an agency is required to evaluate the realism of offerors’ proposed compensation plans under FAR 52.222-46, Evaluation of Compensation for Professional Employees, related to the entire contract, including the firm-fixed price (FFP). This case stems from a solicitation issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), seeking proposals for information technology operations, maintenance, and ancillary support. The solicitation stated that the contract would consist of both FFP and time-and-materials components, and contained FAR 52.222-46.

GAO’s recent decision in Wyle Laboratories Inc., B-416528.2, raises significant questions as to the viability of proposals that are submitted before or during, and remain pending after, a government contract acquisition. This is the second recent GAO protest decision that highlights the risks of certain government contract M&A deals to pending procurements, and the decision underscores the importance of strategic planning in connection with such deals.

Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a panel to study DoD’s procurement practices and recommend legislative and other changes aimed at modernizing those practices. The Panel has released the third volume of its final report, making a total of 58 new recommendations. As we noted in our overview of Volume 3 of the Panel’s report, a number of the recommendations relate to socioeconomic and small business issues. These recommendations attempt to streamline and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the defense acquisition process by removing barriers to entry, revising outdated and burdensome requirements, and clarifying the preference for procuring commercial items when considering small business set-asides. We discuss Recommendations 64, 65, 79 and 80 below.

As we reported previously, the Congressionally mandated Section 809 Panel (the Panel) recently issued Volume 3 of its Final Report. This volume builds upon the first two volumes of the Final Report by making additional recommendations for improving DoD’s acquisition process. This is the third of four alerts about the substance of Volume 3 of the Final Report. In this client alert, we explore recommendations regarding a broad range of financial issues at DoD.

As we previously reported, the Congressionally mandated Section 809 Panel recently issued Volume 3 of its Final Report. Volume 3 of the Final Report makes additional recommendations for improving the Department of Defense’s (DoD) acquisition process. This is the second of four alerts about the substance of Volume 3 of the Final Report. In this client alert, we explore recommendations that the DoD replicate the commercial contracting process.

Section 809 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2016 directed the Secretary of Defense to establish a panel to study DoD’s procurement practices and recommend legislative and other changes aimed at modernizing them. The Panel has released the third volume of its final report, making a total of 58 new recommendations. As we noted in our overview of Volume 3 of the Panel’s report, a number of the recommendations relate to bid protests of DoD procurements. Some recommendations may be viewed as innocuous changes that will promote transparency in DoD’s procurement practices. Other recommendations, however, may be viewed as efforts to streamline DoD’s acquisition practices—not by promoting transparency and accountability, but by eliminating avenues of relief for aggrieved offerors. We discuss Recommendations 66–69 and 76 in detail below.

Financial institutions regulated by the New York Department of Financial Services (DFS)—referred to in this post as “Covered Entities”—should by now be well familiar with the department’s sweeping cybersecurity regulation, 23 NYCRR 500, that became effective on March 1, 2017. The regulation delves into a level of detail (e.g., multi-factor authentication and encryption requirements) and requires a level of senior level attention (e.g., annual attestation of compliance, signed by the Board of Directors or a Senior Officer) heretofore unseen in U.S. federal or state regulations.

2018 was a year of sweeping change for employers and employees in New York. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, New York State and New York City reacted quickly to pass a series of laws to reduce sexual harassment in the workplace. The New York Paid Family Leave Benefits Law went into effect, providing employees eight weeks of partially paid leave funded by employee paycheck deductions. New York City amended its Earned Sick Time Act to allow employees to take “safe leave” to seek redress for victims or family members of victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, or stalking.