Massachusetts Pay Transparency Law: What Employers Need to Know Before February
Last July, Massachusetts joined a growing number of states mandating that employers provide pay transparency to employees. The Massachusetts pay transparency law also includes a wage data reporting component that requires covered employers to submit EEO-1 reports to the Commonwealth on an annual basis. As the Feb. 3, 2025, deadline to file EEO-1 reports nears, the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development has released frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help employers comply with the wage data reporting aspect of the new law.
Key Takeaways
The Massachusetts pay transparency law was drafted to mirror the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC’s) reporting requirements, including a prior wage data reporting obligation that entailed submitting W-2 income earnings by race/ethnicity, sex, and job category. Significantly, the EEOC has not required the wage data reporting component since 2018. Thus, the FAQs confirm that the Commonwealth will still accept EEO-1 reports and will not require any additional information at this time.
Only employers with at least 100 employees in the Commonwealth at any time during the prior calendar year are subject to the reporting requirement (the threshold drops to 25 for the disclosure of pay ranges in job postings).
The statute provides that the initial wage data report is due by Feb. 1, 2025, and annually on the same date thereafter. If the deadline falls on a weekend or holiday, however, it will be extended to the next business day. Since Feb. 1 falls on a Saturday this year, reports will be accepted until Monday, Feb. 3, 2025. The other EEO reports are due by the same deadline but on a biennial basis: EEO-3 and EEO-5 this year, and EEO-4 next year.
Employers must submit the report in PDF, JPG, or PNG format to the Secretary of State’s office through the web portal: EEO Wage and Workforce Data Reports.
By June 1, 2025, the Executive Office of Labor and Workforce Development will publish the inaugural wage and workforce data report.
In addition to the impending wage data reporting deadline, employers should continue to prepare for the pay disclosure requirements that go into effect in October 2025.
Employers should be reviewing (or implementing pay ranges) for various job categories and evaluating whether employees are properly compensated within the established pay ranges. We expect additional guidance on the pay disclosure requirements.
SCOTUS: No Heightened Standard of Proof Required for FLSA Exemption Defense
In E.M.D. Sales, Inc. v. Cabrera, issued on January 15, 2025, the Supreme Court held that the “preponderance of the evidence” standard—and not the more difficult-to-satisfy “clear and convincing evidence” standard—applies when an employer seeks to demonstrate that an employee is exempt from the minimum wage and/or overtime pay provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
In an FLSA dispute, plaintiffs bear the burden to prove all elements of their claims. But if the employer is defending on the ground that an exemption applies, the employer has the burden of proof on the exemption. The issue before the Supreme Court in Cabrera was the level of proof required.
In 1938, when Congress passed and President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed the FLSA, the default standard of proof in American civil litigation was the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. That standard—which allows both parties to “share the risk of error in roughly equal fashion,” in the Court’s words—remains the default standard of proof in American civil litigation today.
In civil litigation, the Supreme Court has deviated from the default preponderance standard in three main circumstances:
where a statute expressly requires a heightened standard of proof;
where the Constitution requires a heightened standard of proof; and
in “uncommon” cases where Supreme Court precedent holds that a heightened standard of proof is appropriate, including where the government seeks to take action “more dramatic than entering an award of money damages or other conventional relief” against an individual (e.g., revocation of citizenship).
With none of these circumstances present, the Court held that the default preponderance standard governs when an employer seeks to prove that an employee is exempt under the FLSA. The Court quickly disposed of the plaintiff-employees’ policy arguments, noting that “[i]f clear and convincing evidence is not required in Title VII cases, it is hard to see why it would be required in [FLSA] cases.”
Environmental Developments to Watch in California in 2025
Contaminants of Concern
Perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)
In September 2024, California’s legislature enacted two new bills restricting the use of PFAS in consumer products.
AB 347 – This statute gives California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) enforcement authority over existing PFAS restrictions on textile articles (AB 1817), juvenile products (AB 652), and cookware and food packaging (AB 1200) (the “covered products” under the “covered PFAS restrictions”). AB 347 also requires manufacturers of covered products to submit a registration to DTSC by July 1, 2029, pay a registration fee, and submit a statement of compliance to DTSC confirming that each covered product complies with the covered PFAS restriction on the sale or distribution of the product that contains regulated PFAS. DTSC will begin enforcing this legislation after July 1, 2030. Given DTSC is the enforcement authority for the above-mentioned covered products, we expect DTSC to release guidance on interpreting AB 1817, AB 652, and AB 1200 in the future.
AB 2515 – This statute prohibits companies from manufacturing, selling, or distributing menstrual products that contain regulated PFAS. “Regulated PFAS” means PFAS “intentionally added to a product” as of January 1, 2025, and will mean “PFAS in a product at or above a limit determined by the department” beginning January 1, 2027. Like AB 347, AB 2515 requires manufacturers to register with DTSC by July 1, 2029, pay a registration fee, and submit a statement of compliance confirming that menstrual products do not contain regulated PFAS.
We expect DTSC to initiate the rulemaking process for both statutes, which would include regulations regarding accepted testing methods for PFAS levels in menstrual products and third-party laboratory accreditations, and regulations to implement, interpret, and enforce the statutes. Both statutes require DTSC to adopt these regulations before January 1, 2029.
Proposition 65
California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, Health & Safety Code Section 25249.5 et seq. (“Proposition 65”) prohibits persons in the course of doing business from knowingly and intentionally exposing individuals to certain listed chemicals above a safe harbor level, where one exists, without first providing a “clear and reasonable” warning to such individuals. (Health & Safety Code § 25249.6). The law applies to consumer product exposures, occupational exposures, and environmental exposures that occur in California. Presently, there are approximately 900 listed chemicals known by the State of California to cause cancer, reproductive harm, or both.
In 2025, we will continue to see developments in the implementation and enforcement of this law, of which manufacturers and retailers selling products in California should be aware.
Vinyl Acetate
On December 19, 2024, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment’s (OEHHA) Carcinogenic Identification Committee (CIC) voted to list vinyl acetate as a carcinogen under Proposition 65. Vinyl acetate is primarily used in glues, plastics, paints, paper coatings, and textiles. Exposure to the chemical can occur through dermal contact, inhalation, or ingestion.
Vinyl acetate was listed despite industry groups claiming that none of the recognized Proposition 65 authoritative bodies consider the chemical to be a carcinogen. OEHHA published evidence of the carcinogenicity of vinyl acetate, which was used by the CIC to support the listing.
Once listed, businesses have 12 months to provide any required warnings.
Warning Labels
Safe harbor regulations provide examples of long-form and short-form warnings deemed “clear and reasonable,” which, if followed, offer businesses an affirmative defense in the event of enforcement. On December 6, 2024, OEHHA amended Proposition 65 to require companies to add at least one chemical name—or the name of two chemicals, if the warning covers both cancer and reproductive toxicity, unless the same chemical is listed for both endpoints—to the short-form warning on the product label for products manufactured and labeled after January 1, 2028. For example:
“[the warning symbol] WARNING: Cancer risk from exposure to [name of chemical]. See www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
OEHHA has authorized the continued used of the earlier short-form warning template (that does not name the chemical) for products manufactured and labeled before January 1, 2028:
“[the warning symbol] WARNING: Cancer – www.P65Warnings.ca.gov.”
Manufacturers and retailers selling products in California containing listed chemicals should review their product labeling protocols, as non-compliance may result in an enforcement action. Some manufacturers have employed generic short-form warnings to forestall enforcement actions without determining whether their products actually exposed consumers to listed chemicals. This practice will not be effective after 2027.
Amended Acrylamide Warning Label
On January 1, 2025, OEHHA’s amendments to acrylamide warning label requirements took effect. The new regulation provides:
Warnings must now contain either:
“WARNING”
“CA WARNING”; or
“CALIFORNIA WARNING.”
The warning must be followed by either:
“Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide;” or
“Consuming this product can expose you to acrylamide, a chemical formed in some foods during cooking or processing at high temperatures.”
The warning must also be followed by at least one of the following:
“The International Agency for Research on Cancer has found that acrylamide is probably carcinogenic to humans;”
“The United States Environmental Protection Agency has found that acrylamide is likely to be carcinogenic to humans;” or
“The United States National Toxicology Program has found that acrylamide is reasonably anticipated to cause cancer in humans.”
The warning may be followed by one or more of the following:
“Acrylamide has been found to cause cancer in laboratory animals”;
“Many factors affect your cancer risk, including the frequency and amount of chemical consumed”’ or
“For more information including ways to reduce your exposure, see www.P65Warnings.ca.gov/acrylamide.”
The newly amended warning language comes after years of ongoing litigation alleging that the previous warning mandate violated the First Amendment (California Chamber of Commerce v. Rob Bonta (2:19-cv-2019 DJC JDP)). Challengers allege that the warning remains unconstitutional as the state has failed to show that the warnings are purely factual and uncontroversial. As described below, the First Amendment is proving to be an effective defense in some circumstances.
Litigation Update: The Personal Care Products Council vs. Rob Bonta
In recent years, the First Amendment has served as a powerful tool for companies subject to Proposition 65 labeling requirements. A 2025 ruling in The Personal Care Products Council vs. Rob Bonta (2:23-cv-01006) will determine the legality of warning labeling requirements regarding titanium dioxide in consumer products. In 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California is poised to rule on the parties’ motions in the case. If the Court grants the Personal Care Products Council’s (PCPC) summary judgment motion, the ruling will have far-reaching impacts on the enforcement of Proposition 65, bolstering the First Amendment defense to Proposition 65 claims where there is a reasonable scientific debate about the hazards of the listed chemical.
The action was brought in 2023 by PCPC a non-profit association of businesses in the cosmetic and personal care products industry, which sued California Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity.
On June 12, 2024, the District Court issued an Order granting PCPC’s request for a preliminary injunction enjoining Bonta and all private enforcers of Proposition 65 from filing new lawsuits to enforce the law’s warning requirement for exposures to titanium dioxide. The District Court agreed with PCPC that the “Prop 65 warning requirements for Listed Titanium Dioxide are not purely factual because they tend to mislead the average consumer” since the warnings may convey a “false and/or misleading message that Listed Titanium Dioxide causes cancer in humans or will increase a consumer’s risk of cancer.” This, according to the District Court, renders PCPC likely to prevail on the merits of its First Amendment claim under Zauderer v. Off. of Disciplinary Couns. of Supreme Ct. of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626 (1985) (government may compel commercial speech so long as it is reasonably related to substantial governmental interest, purely factual, noncontroversial, and not unjustified or unduly burdensome).
PCPC’s pending summary judgment motion was filed on September 10, 2024. If granted, this will be the third case successfully challenging Proposition 65 warnings on First Amendment grounds, with previous cases involving designated glyphosate and acrylamide. See Nat’l. Assoc. of Wheat Growers v. Bonta, 85 F.4th 1263 (9th Cir. 2023); Cal. Chamber of Comm. v. Bonta, 529 F. Supp. 3d 1099 (E.D. Cal. 2021).
Here, the District Court’s June 12, 2024 ruling dramatically halted the prosecution of countless pending claims against cosmetic companies and retailers of cosmetics. A favorable ruling for PCPC in 2025 may embolden companies subject to Proposition 65 requirements to bring an array of constitutional challenges with respect to other designated chemicals, specifically businesses selling products containing a designated chemical where the underlying scientific basis for its designation is controversial. The District Court’s language strongly casts doubt on the constitutionality of “misleading” Proposition 65 labels that lack an adequate scientific basis.
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) and Recycling
California continues to pave the way for EPR laws that affect various products. Rulemaking efforts will continue through 2025.
AB 863 – Carpets
Governor Newsom approved AB 863 on September 27, 2024, governing carpet recycling in California. California enacted its first carpet stewardship law in 2010 and has since amended it multiple times. The latest law maintains several basic facets and updates the governance structure of California’s current carpet stewardship program but nominally converts it to a carpet producer responsibility program following the expiration of the current 2023-2027 five-year carpet stewardship plan. The new law punts many specifics of the new program to the discretion of CalRecycle, including performance standards and metrics, key definitions, deadlines, and grounds for approving or revoking an approved plan. CalRecycle must adopt implementing regulations effective no earlier than December 31, 2026. The law purports to deem CalRecycle’s adopted “performance standards” as immune from judicial review under the California Administrative Procedure Act. The law also calls for certain amendments to the existing carpet stewardship plan to be proposed and adopted sooner.
The new law requires all carpet producers doing business in California to form and register with a single producer responsibility organization (PRO). The law requires the PRO to develop a producer responsibility plan for the collection, transportation, recycling, and safe and proper management of covered products in California, along with related public outreach regarding the plan; review the plan at least every five years after approval; and submit annual reports to CalRecycle. An approved plan must be in place within 24 months of the effective date of CalRecycle’s regulations under the new law, which may result in a deadline as early as December 31, 2028. All reports and records must be provided to CalRecycle under penalty of perjury. The law restricts public access to certain information collected for the purpose of administering this program.
The PRO must establish and provide a covered product assessment to be added to the purchase price of a covered product sold in the state by a producer to a California retailer or wholesaler or otherwise sold for use in the state. Each retailer and wholesaler is then required to add the assessment to the purchase price of all covered product sold in the state. This assessment of carpet sales in California parallels existing law. The new law does not specify any other available funding methods for implementing its requirements. The new law also requires the PRO to pay fees to CalRecycle, not to exceed CalRecycle’s actual and reasonable regulatory costs to implement and enforce the program. It further newly requires all carpet sold in California to contain 5% of post-consumer recycled carpet content by 2028, and grants CalRecycle authority to set new rates for 2029 and beyond.
Additionally, the new law requires carpet producers to provide additional information to CalRecycle regarding California carpet sales and compliance with the requirements of an approved plan. CalRecycle must post on its website a list of producers that are in compliance with the requirements of the program. The existing carpet stewardship plan must be amended to allocate 8% of collected assessments to unions for apprenticeship program grants. Compared to current law, penalties for violations increase from $5,000 per day to $10,000 per day, and from $10,000 per day to $25,000 per day if the violation is intentional, knowing, or negligent. CalRecycle may audit a carpet stewardship organization and individual producers annually The law also clarifies that a carpet stewardship organization cannot delegate decision-making responsibility regarding a carpet stewardship plan to a person who is not a member of the organization’s board.
SB 707 – Textiles
In September 2024, California’s legislature enacted the first, and only current, statewide EPR textile program in the U.S. with the Responsible Textile Recovery Act of 2024. The Act requires qualified producers of apparel or textile articles to form and join a PRO that CalRecycle will approve by March 1, 2026. All eligible producers must join the PRO by July 1, 2026. Once formed, the PRO must submit a statewide plan for the collection, transportation, repair, sorting, recycling, and the safe and proper management of covered clothing and textiles to CalRecycle for review. Once the plan is approved, retailers, importers, distributors, and online marketplaces will not be permitted to sell, distribute, offer for sale, or import a covered product into the state unless the producer of the covered product is listed as in compliance. The PRO will charge each participant-producer annual fees for its operation.
By July 1, 2030, or upon approval of the plan, whichever occurs first, noncompliant producers of covered products will be subject to administrative civil penalties up to $50,000 per day.
The Act directs CalRecycle to adopt regulations to implement its provisions with an effective date of no earlier than July 1, 2028. The rulemaking process will be carried out in accordance with California’s Administrative Procedure Act, which provides opportunities for the public, including industry representatives, to shape the policy going forward. Rulemaking efforts associated with SB 707 are not yet listed on CalRecycle’s website, but given the short deadlines imposed by the Act, we can expect updates in the near future.
AB 187 – Mattresses
California’s legislature established the Used Mattress Recovery and Recycling Act (Mattress EPR Act) in 2013 and most recently updated it in 2019. The Mattress EPR Act, which CalRecycle administers, applies to manufacturers, renovators, distributors, and retailers that sell, offer for sale, or import a mattress into California. At least once every five years, the mattress recycling organization reviews the plan for the recovery and recycling of used mattresses and determines whether amendments are necessary. Each year, CalRecycle, through the Mattress Recycling Council, posts lists of compliant manufacturers, renovators, and distributors on its website. If the manufacturer, brand, renovator, or distributor is not on this list, no retailer or distributor may sell a mattress in the state until the department affirms they are in compliance.
CalRecycle may impose an administrative civil penalty of not more than $500 per day on any manufacturer, mattress recycling organization, distributor, recycler, renovator, or retailer violating the Mattress EPR Act. However, if the violation is intentional, knowing, or reckless, the department may impose an administrative civil penalty of not more than $5,000 per day.
SB 551 – Beverage Containers
SB 551, or the California Beverage Container Recycling and Litter Reduction Act, took effect on September 29, 2024 as an urgency statute, necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution. Plastic beverage containers sold by a beverage manufacturer must contain a specified average percentage of post-consumer recycled plastic per year. Manufacturers of beverages sold in a plastic beverage container subject to the California Redemption Value fee must report to CalRecycle certain information about the amounts of virgin plastic and post-consumer recycled plastic used for those containers for sale in California in the previous calendar year. The law authorizes certain beverage manufacturers to submit a consolidated report to CalRecycle with other beverage manufacturers, in lieu of individual reports, if those beverage manufacturers share rights to the same brands or the products of which are distributed, marketed, or manufactured by a single reporting beverage manufacturer. This consolidated report must be submitted under penalty of perjury and pursuant to standardized forms prescribed by CalRecycle.
SB 54 – Plastics and Packaging
At the start of this year, CalRecycle was required to adopt any necessary regulations to implement and enforce its Plastic Pollution Prevention and Packaging Producer Responsibility Act (SB 54). SB 54 imposes EPR on “producers” of packaging materials for achieving the source reduction, recyclability or composability, and recycling rates for their products. Producers may comply with SB 54’s requirements by either joining the Circular Action Alliance (CAA), the PRO selected by the state to administer SB 54, or through assuming individual responsibility for compliance.
CalRecycle met its regulation deadline under SB 54 by publishing the Source Reduction Baseline Report on December 31, 2024, followed by updates to the list of Covered Material Categories regulated by SB 54 on January 1, 2025. The updates to the Covered Material Categories include an increase in materials considered to be “recyclable” or “compostable” while the Source Reduction Baseline Report establishes a baseline measurement for the Department and CAA to define source reduction targets, develop plans and budgets, and the track progress of SB 54’s implementation.
On January 1, 2025, SB 54’s prohibition on the sale, distribution, or importation of expanded polystyrene (EPS) food service items—unless the producer can demonstrate that all EPS used in the state meets a recycling rate of least 25%—went into effect. EPS food service producers may now be subject to notices of violation from CalRecycle and enforcement of penalties for noncompliance of up to $50,000 per violation, per day. Recycling rate mandates for plastic-covered materials do not go into effect until 2028.
SB 1143 – Paint
In September 2024, California enacted SB 1143, which expands the state’s existing Architectural Paint Recovery Program to include a wider range of paint products. “Paint product” is now defined to include interior and exterior architectural coatings, aerosol coating products, nonindustrial coatings, and coating-related products sold in containers of five gallons or less for commercial or homeowner use.
The law tasks CalRecycle with administering the program and approving a stewardship plan for the newly covered paint products. Retailers, importers, distributors, and online marketplaces will be prohibited from selling, offering for sale, or importing these products in California unless the producers are in compliance with the stewardship plan. Producers may comply with SB 1143 requirements by either joining PaintCare, the only recognized paint stewardship organization representing paint manufacturers in California, or through assuming individual responsibility for compliance.
All eligible products must comply with the new requirements by January 1, 2028, or an earlier date set by an approved stewardship plan. By July 1, 2030, or upon approval of the plan, whichever comes first, noncompliant producers will face administrative civil penalties up to $50,000 per day.
Climate Regulation
SB 261 and SB 253
After a year of uncertainty driven by budget constraints, California seems poised to implement its climate disclosure laws (SB 261 and SB 253) that were first passed in 2023. In September 2024, the Legislature passed SB 219, which granted the California Air Resources Board (CARB) a 6-month extension to issue the requisite rules that must be adopted by no later than July 1, 2025. CARB is responsible for administering SB 261 and SB 253.
On December 16, 2024, CARB posted an Information Solicitation that calls for public comments on the implementation of the laws and related issues. The Information Solicitation also invites input on key aspects of the climate disclosure framework that have been subject to speculation since the laws were enacted, such as the definition of “entity that does business in California” (clarifying the cohort within the scope of the laws); the methods for measuring and reporting scope 1, scope 2, and scope 3 emissions; and third-party verification and assurance requirements. The deadline to submit comments through CARB’s website is February 14, 2025.
Cal Chamber v. CARB
On January 30, 2024, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and other business groups filed Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America et al. v. California Air Resources Board (CARB) et al., No. 2:24-cv-00801 (C.D. Cal. 2024) challenging SB 253 and SB 261 for violation of the First Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, and the U.S. Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation, including the dormant Commerce Clause.
Regarding the First Amendment facial challenge, the Plaintiffs alleged the laws “compel companies to publicly express a speculative, noncommercial, controversial, and politically-charged message that they otherwise would not express.” Concerning the Supremacy Clause, they argued that by requiring companies to make speculative public statements about emissions and climate-related financial risk, the laws enable “activists and policymakers to single out companies,” pressuring them to reduce emissions within and outside California. As for the constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs alleged that California lacks authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions outside of the state and that the laws are invalid under the U.S. Constitution’s limitations on extraterritorial regulation because they heavily intrude on Congress’s authority to regulate interstate and foreign commerce.
To expedite the District Court’s ruling, the Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on the First Amendment challenge. Simultaneously, CARB moved to dismiss the Plaintiffs’ Supremacy Clause and extraterritorial regulation claims. On November 5, 2024, the District Court denied the Plaintiffs’ motion. The Court held that the First Amendment applied to SB 253 and 261; however, it concluded that the constitutional challenge involves factual questions that go beyond pure legal analysis and thus, completing a “fact-driven task” was necessary to decide which of the laws’ applications violate the First Amendment. It held that further discovery is required to complete this “fact-driven” task.
The District Court indicated that it would address CARB’s motion to dismiss in a separate order. That motion is pending as of the date of this publication.
SB 1383 – Organic Waste & Food Collection
Since CalRecycle adopted regulations implementing SB 1383, California communities have made progress in diverting and reducing the disposal of organic waste and thereby reducing the amount of methane emissions from landfills. According to California’s Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, 93% of jurisdictions with requirements for collection reported having residential organics collection, and 100% of California communities expanded programs to send still-fresh, unsold food to Californians in need, reducing the waste large food businesses send to landfills every year. Through SB 619, 126 jurisdictions have been granted additional time to comply with SB 1383 regulations.
While progress has been made, local jurisdictions continue to struggle to meet the law’s mandates (namely, reduce organic waste disposal by 75% and reduce edible food waste by 20% by 2025). Rather than revising those mandates or pausing the implementation of SB 1383 to ensure jurisdictions weren’t sanctioned for missing implementation deadlines, the legislature enacted a number of laws to address some of the concerns raised by the regulated community. These include SB 2902, AB 2346, and SB 1046.
SB 2902 extends the rural jurisdiction exemption to comply with organics collection and procurement requirements until January 1, 2027. AB 2346 allows jurisdictions to count specified compost products toward their goals and adopt a five-year procurement target instead of annual goals, and SB 1046 directs CalRecycle to create a programmatic environmental impact report for small to medium composting facilities, aiding local governments and composters by streamlining permitting.
Although CalRecycle initiated formal enforcement actions in 2024, there is no indication that the agency has fined or sanctioned any jurisdiction for non-compliance. As the 2025 target date has now passed, expect enforcement efforts to increase in the months and years ahead.
Energy Efficiency Standards
As covered in our December 10, 2024 news alert, manufacturers and sellers of consumer products in California should be aware that the California Energy Commission continues to bring more enforcement actions and assess large civil penalties for violations of its Title 20 Appliance Efficiency Program. At a time when federal appliance efficiency standard enforcement is expected to recede due to the recent presidential election and imminent transition, California enforcement is likely to continue to grow. Regulated businesses, therefore, should pay increasing attention to Title 20 compliance, not only to avoid large fines but also to ensure continued access to their products in the lucrative California market.
Stationary Source Regulation
AB 1465 – Air Quality Management Districts (AQMDs) Granted Authority to Seek Triple Penalties
For years, the penalty ceilings in California’s Health & Safety Code have limited the ability of California’s regional AQMDs to collect civil penalties for rule violations. Starting January 1, 2025, AB 1465 tripled these ceilings. For example, the typical maximum penalty for strict liability violations—previously $12,090 per violation—has escalated to $36,270 per violation. The new law also requires that air districts (or a court) consider items like health impacts and community disruptions when evaluating penalty amounts (in addition to other factors required to be considered by law). These elevated ceilings only apply to stationary sources that have a Federal Clean Air Act Title V permit and emit certain defined compounds. How air districts will wield this new authority has yet to be seen, but we expect to see increasing penalties for many sources as a result.
Indirect Source Rules Will Continue to be a Hot Topic
While regional air districts are generally limited in their legal authority to regulate mobile sources (that authority is reserved for California’s state air regulator, CARB), indirect source rules (regulation of stationary sources that attract emissions from mobile sources) have received renewed attention as a means by which air districts seek to curb air pollution. With the incoming Trump administration signaling its intent to limit California’s ability to regulate mobile sources, air districts will likely be incentivized to find creative ways to indirectly regulate mobile sources within their districts.
In 2024, the South Coast AQMD received U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approval to include such an indirect source rule (ISR) for warehouses as part of its state implementation plan. South Coast AQMD also adopted an ISR in 2024 applicable to rail yards and has been working on a rule applicable to ports for years, which it promises to bring before its board for approval in 2025.
Perhaps observing the South Coast AQMD’s recent ISR adoptions, the Bay Area AQMD also included an ISR in its 2025 rulemaking forecast. However, exactly what such a rule for this district might look like or what source it might seek to regulate remains to be seen.
New National Ambient Air Quality Standard for PM 2.5 Will Likely Drive Rulemaking Activity
California’s major regional air quality districts (the Bay Area AQMD, the South Coast AQMD, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District) have jurisdiction over areas considered to be in non-attainment of national standards regarding particulate matter (PM) 2.5. Areas in persistent non-attainment status risk federal sanctions and the loss of federal highway funding. In early 2024, EPA tightened the PM 2.5 standards even further. As a result, some air districts may consider rulemakings designed to reduce PM2.5 pollution within their jurisdictions. Given that mobile sources are a major contributor of this pollutant, ISR options may become even more appealing in 2025 and beyond.
Mobile Source Regulation
The Clean Air Act preempts states from adopting their own emission standards for new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines. However, Section 209 of the Clean Air Act allows California to set its own emissions standards if EPA grants a waiver from the federal preemption or EPA authorizes California to enforce its own standards despite the preemption. In the past year, CARB submitted requests for waiver or authorization for several regulations.
Advanced Clean Fleets Regulation – This regulation applies to trucks performing drayage operations at seaports and railyards; fleets owned by State, local, and federal government agencies; and high-priority fleets that are entities that own, operate, or direct at least one vehicle in California and that have either $50 million or more in gross annual revenue, or that own, operate, or have common ownership or control of a total of 50 or more vehicles. The regulation imposes restrictions on purchasing internal combustion engines, requires fleet owners to phase in zero-emission vehicles (ZEVs) or near-ZEVs beginning in 2024, and imposes reporting and recordkeeping requirements on fleet owners and operators. On January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew the request for waiver and authorization. In a response letter, EPA stated that it, therefore, “considers the matter closed.”
In-Use Locomotive Standards – The regulation has four primary, interrelated components: (1) imposes restrictions on the operation of any locomotive that is “23 years or older” from the original engine build date unless the locomotive exclusively operates in zero-emission configuration within California; (2) requires railroads to make annual deposits into a “Spending Account” based on the locomotive’s emissions in California in the prior year and imposes restrictions on the use of funds in the “Spending Account”; (3) imposes idling requirements that would regulate a locomotive’s function and maintenance; and (4) imposes registration, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements, including the requirement to annually report emissions information for non-zero emissions locomotives. On January 13, 2025, CARB withdrew the request for waiver and authorization. By response letter, EPA stated it therefore “considers this matter closed.”
Amendments to the Small Off-Road Engines Regulations – The amendments include improvements to evaporative emissions certification procedures, revise the compliance testing procedure, update the evaporative emissions certification test fuel to represent commercially available gasoline, and align aspects of the regulation requirements with the corresponding federal requirements. EPA granted the authorization request on December 19, 2024.
The “Omnibus” Low NOx Regulation – The regulation establishes the next generation of exhaust emission standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx), PM, and other emission-related requirements for new 2024 and subsequent model year on-road medium- and heavy-duty engines and vehicles. EPA granted the authorization request on December 17, 2024.
Advanced Clean Cars II Program – The regulations amend the Zero-emission Vehicle Regulation to require an increasing number of ZEVs and amends the Low-emission Vehicle Regulations to include increasingly stringent particulate matter, Nox, and hydrocarbon standards for gasoline cars and heavier passenger trucks to continue to reduce smog-forming emissions. EPA granted the authorization request on January 6, 2025.
Amendments to California’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel-Fueled Fleets regulation – The amendments will require fleets to phase out use of the oldest and highest polluting offroad diesel vehicles in California, prohibit the addition of high-emitting vehicles to a fleet, and require the use of R99 or R100 renewable diesel in off-road diesel vehicles. EPA granted the authorization request on January 3, 2025.
If the current EPA administration does not grant the pending waiver requests, then it is unclear how EPA under the Trump administration will decide on the waiver requests. Our November 6, 2024 news alert discusses these waiver issues in more detail.
CARB also enacted the zero-emission forklift regulation on August 2, 2024. The regulation accelerates the transition towards zero-emission forklifts by restricting fleet operators/owners from owning, possessing, and operating Large Spark Ignition (LSI) forklifts starting on January 1, 2026, and requiring fleet operators to phase out Class IV LSI forklifts of any rated capacity, as well as Class V LSI Forklifts with rated capacity less than 12,000 pounds according to the compliance schedule in the Regulation. These forklifts will need to be phased out by January 1, 2038.
Cal/OSHA Developments
Cal/OSHA Lead Exposure Regulations
The California Division of Occupational Safety and Health’s (Cal/OSHA) updated lead standards, which were approved on February 15, 2024, and went into effect on January 1, 2025. These apply to both general and construction worksites and replace standards that are decades old, based on data from over 40 years ago. The amended standards modify the permissible exposure limit (PEL), action level (AL), workplace hygiene practices, and medical surveillance requirements relating to lead in the workplace.
The reduction of the PEL and AL is significant; the threshold that triggers various regulatory requirements is now considerably lower. Many new industries will likely be covered. The PEL is now 10 µg/m3 (8-hour-time weighted average), an 80% reduction from the earlier PEL (50 µg/m3). The AL is now 2 µg/m3, a 93% drop from the prior AL (30 µg/m3).
Regulations for General Industry now define certain tasks as “Presumed Significant Lead Work” (PSLW). Until employers perform an employee exposure assessment, they are required to provide employees performing PSLW with interim protections.
For the construction industry, the regulations also define various “trigger tasks” levels, which assume a certain level of employee exposure. These “triggers” require protective measures for employees performing these tasks until an employee exposure assessment is completed.
Cal/OSHA Silica Emergency Temporary Standard
Cal/OSHA stated that California is experiencing a “silicosis epidemic” among artificial stone fabrication workers. In December 2023, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board (OSHB) approved the Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) on Respirable Crystalline Silica (RCS) in response to these circumstances. The ETS intends to protect employees working with artificial and natural stone containing more than 10% crystalline silica. Additional protections apply to workers performing “high exposure trigger tasks.”
On December 19, 2024, OSHB voted unanimously to make the Silica ETS permanent. The decision is a step towards making these emergency measures permanent. The current proposal continues the protections the ETS has introduced, with some changes. These include a new medical removal subsection and updates to the medical surveillance subsection.
The proposed medical removal provisions provide protections to employees when a physician or other licensed healthcare professional (PLHCP) recommends that they be removed from a job assignment or that the job be modified to reduce exposure to RCS. The proposed updates to the medical surveillance provisions include specific medical procedures to be conducted for the required initial and periodic examinations. PLCHPs and specialists would also be required to submit certain information to the California Department of Public Health for each silica medical examination conducted.
The Office of Administrative Law has 30 days to approve or deny the proposal. We expect a decision in mid-January 2025.
Cal/OSHA Increases Staffing for Its Bureau of Investigations Unit
In August 2024, Cal/OSHA announced that it had increased staffing for its Bureau of Investigations (BOI) unit. Cal/OSHA says this would “allow BOI to tackle more cases and ensure that the most negligent of employers are held accountable.”
The BOI is responsible for investigating employee fatality and serious injury cases, and preparing and referring cases to local and state prosecutors for criminal prosecution. Cal/OSHA was criticized in early 2024 for the short-staffed status of BOI. Given the recently enhanced staffing, employers should expect that BOI investigations will likely increase in 2025.
Bird Flu
On December 18, 2024, Governor Newsom declared a state of emergency for Avian influenza (H5N1) (“bird flu”) in California. On December 27, 2024, the Division of Workers’ Compensation (DWC) advised employers and healthcare professionals to look for occupational cases of bird flu. There have been no cases of human-to-human transmission in California—nearly all affected persons had exposure to infected cattle. In light of DWC’s recommendations, employers should nevertheless review Cal/OSHA’s guidance on bird flu for employers.
Water Rights, Tribal Issues, Public Lands, Endangered Species
Threatened Species Listing of Monarch Butterfly
On December 12, 2024, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed listing the monarch butterfly as a threatened species with a special section 4(d) rule under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The special 4(d) rule would provide very narrow exemptions to the ESA’s broad prohibition on unauthorized take for certain types of activities that may otherwise impact the species. FWS also proposed designating nearly 4,500 acres in California as critical habitat that would extend from the California Bay Area’s Marin County down the state’s western coast to Ventura County north of Los Angeles.
If finalized as proposed, this listing would stand as the largest listing decision in ESA history, affecting the entire lower forty-eight states. FWS is receiving public comment through March 12, 2025.
Central Valley Project and State Water Project
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation)’s Central Valley Project (CVP), which is operated jointly with the California Department of Water Resources’ State Water Project (SWP), manages the collection, storage, and transport of many millions of acre-feet of water through the Central Valley for delivery to irrigators and municipalities and to meet state and federal ecological and species requirements. In 2018, California finalized revisions to its Water Quality Control Plan for the San Francisco Bay and San Joaquin-Sacramento River Delta (Bay-Delta) to require that more flows from the San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers would reach the Bay-Delta for water quality and fish and wildlife enhancement, accordingly reducing water supplies for agricultural irrigators. In 2019, the previous Trump administration responded by committing to increasing CVP water supplies for agricultural users through changes to long-term operations of the CVP, pursuant to a 2019 ESA biological opinion or “BiOp.”
These ESA changes were promptly challenged by California and environmental organizations as insufficiently protective of Bay-Delta salmon and smelt populations, habitats, and spawning activities. They were first enjoined by federal court and later remanded to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and FWS under the Biden administration. The cases were stayed during NMFS and FWS’s reconsideration of new CVP and SWP operating rules, in favor of an interim operations plan (IOP), which was extended through December 2024 to allow for the issuance of new CVP and SWP BiOps. See March 28, 2024 Order in Pacific Coast Federation of Fishermen’s Associations v. Raimondo, Civ. Nos. 20-00426, -00431 (E.D. Cal.). On December 20, 2024, on the verge of another change in administration, Reclamation issued its Record of Decision for the “Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project” based on 2024 BiOps, to mixed reviews from environmentalists and water users alike. It is likely that these new “California water rules” will spark new rounds of both litigation challenges and regulatory reconsideration in 2025.
Yurok Tribe v. Klamath Water Users Association
In this appeal before the Ninth Circuit (Nos. 23-15499 and 23-15521, consolidated), the Klamath Water Users Association (KWA) and Klamath Irrigation District (KID) sought review of a 2023 federal district court decision holding that an Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD) order prohibiting Reclamation from releasing stored water subject to adjudicated irrigation rights from Upper Klamath Lake to protect and restore endangered fish species was preempted by the ESA. KWA and KID had sought declaratory relief that the ESA does not authorize Reclamation to release water from Upper Klamath Lake, arguing that the case does not involve any issue of preemption, because Reclamation does not have authority under its enabling act to appropriate rights to use water in violation of Oregon law, and the ESA does not expand these Reclamation authorities. OWRD subsequently withdrew its order.
The Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on June 12, 2024, but the court, just prior to the hearing, indicated that it perceived potential jurisdictional issues due to the OWRD withdrawal having mooted the initial challenge to its order. At oral argument, KID urged the court to certify key questions to the Oregon Supreme Court concerning Reclamation’s authority to use and control the use of water under Oregon law, arguing that Oregon’s water rights and laws governing the use and control of water in Upper Klamath Lake were established long before the ESA was enacted, that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act mandates compliance with state water law and water rights, and that controlling precedent makes clear that state law governs whether Reclamation has authority or discretion to meet its ESA obligations using stored irrigation water subject to adjudicated water rights. Therefore, these state law questions should be addressed independently of the federal question of Reclamation’s ESA obligations and their preemptive consequences. Briefing on KID’s motion for certification continued into December 2024, so a Ninth Circuit ruling on the merits, or as to whether the questions will proceed for now in state or federal court, can be expected in 2025.
Water
On November 20, 2024, EPA Region 9 published in the Federal Register its Final Designation of formerly unregulated stormwater discharges from commercial, industrial, and institutional (CII) properties for required National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permitting. The designation applies to CII facilities consisting of five or more acres of impermeable surfaces (in the case of unpermitted facilities) or five or more total acres (in the case of unpermitted portions of facilities already holding a NPDES permit and no exposure certificate, and in the case of non-notice of non-applicability (NONA) covered portions of facilities with a NONA) in two watersheds in the Los Angeles County area. This expansion of stormwater regulation is a joint effort between EPA Region 9 and the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. The Water Board prepared the corresponding draft CII General Permit and is expected to hold a public hearing on the draft permit now that EPA’s designation is final.
The incoming Trump administration may reevaluate the Final Designation and consider rescinding it, but it may take some time for new EPA staffers to address this action. In the interim, it will be critical for parties adversely affected by the Final Designation to expeditiously seek judicial review—and a stay or preliminary injunction—to protect their interests.
Additional Authors: Gary J. Smith, Patrick J. Redmond, Leticia E. Duarte, Sara M. Eddy, Gabriela Espir, Jeremy D. Faulkner, Nicole L. Garson, Ragini Gupta, Lauren M. Lankenau, Sharon Mathew, Claire S. McLeod Ruiz, Lauren M. Murvihill, and Megan V. Unger
Sixth Circuit Rules Jury Must Decide if FLSA Violations Were Willful
On December 23, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in Su v. KDE Equine, LLC that whether an employer willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is a fact question best left to the jury.
The unanimous Sixth Circuit panel vacated the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky’s award of summary judgment on this issue, holding that a reasonable factfinder could conclude the defendant’s FLSA violations were not willful. The decision is notable because it clarifies that defendants must act with the required mental state for their actions to be considered “willful” under the FLSA.
Quick Hits
The Sixth Circuit reversed and remanded a finding of willfulness under the FLSA because the district court’s bench trial focused only on whether the defendant had violated the FLSA—not whether it did so willfully.
Defendants must act with the required mental state for their alleged FLSA violations to be considered “willful.”
The Sixth Circuit also vacated the district court’s award of liquidated damages, since the issue of whether the defendant committed its FLSA violations “in good faith” and with “reasonable grounds” turned on the same factual disputes as the willfulness issue.
Summary
Violations of the FLSA’s minimum wage and overtime provisions are subject to a two-year statute of limitations, which may extend to three years if the violations are “willful.” (See 29 U.S.C. §255(a).) Under the FLSA, a finding of “willfulness” requires that the employer either knew or showed reckless disregard with respect to the prohibited conduct. The Supreme Court of the United States has held that negligence alone does not equate to willfulness, and even if an employer’s efforts to comply with the FLSA were unreasonable (but not reckless or knowingly deficient), a finding of willfulness is unwarranted.
Last month, the Sixth Circuit clarified this standard in Su v. KDE Equine LLC. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) had sued KDE Equine, LLC (KDE) in June 2015, alleging KDE had failed to pay its horse groomers the correct overtime wages. In 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky granted summary judgment to KDE on the issue of willfulness, holding that, even when viewing the record in the light most favorable to the DOL, any violations by KDE were at most the result of negligence—not willfulness. The district court then assigned the case to a new judge, who conducted a bench trial in May 2019, which resulted in an award to KDE’s horse groomers for alleged unpaid overtime wages. (The bench trial did not address the willfulness issue, as the court had already ruled on this issue in granting summary judgment to KDE.)
In the first appeal, the Sixth Circuit vacated the grant of summary judgment to KDE on the willfulness issue, holding that “factual disputes” in the case raised “enough of a genuine issue of material fact to preclude summary judgment.” After remand to the district court, the parties again filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
This time, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the DOL and awarded liquidated damages. The district court, therefore, came to different conclusions on the same issue and based on the same facts. One judge held that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that KDE’s violations were willful, and the other held that no reasonable factfinder could conclude that KDE’s violations were anything other than willful. KDE appealed the second ruling.
In the second appeal, the Sixth Circuit concluded that the disagreement between the two judges suggested a trial was necessary on the issues of willfulness and liquidated damages. Specifically, the Sixth Circuit determined that the legal dispute ultimately turned on contested issues of fact, including whether KDE acted with the requisite mental state. Especially important to the Sixth Circuit was the fact that the record contained no “smoking gun” evidence of any willfulness by KDE. For example, the parties did not identify any emails or text messages from KDE personnel showing that they knew they were committing FLSA violations. Thus, only by drawing factual inferences could the district court determine willfulness, and reasonable people could disagree about the validity of those inferences.
Key Takeaways
In the Sixth Circuit, the issue of whether a defendant willfully violated the FLSA is typically a factual issue best left for a jury, absent “smoking gun” evidence of the same. Further, defendants must act with the requisite mental state for their actions to be considered willful violations of the FLSA. The Sixth Circuit’s clarification of this issue stands to impact whether FLSA violations within the court’s jurisdiction will be subject to a two-year statute of limitations or the extended three-year period applicable to “willful” violations.
California Attorney General Issues Two Advisories Summarizing Law Applicable to AI
If you are looking for a high-level summary of California laws regulating artificial intelligence (AI), check out the two legal advisories issued by California Attorney General Rob Bonta. The first advisory is directed at consumers and entities about their rights and obligations under the state’s consumer protection, civil rights, competition, and data privacy laws. The second advisory focuses on healthcare entities.
“AI might be changing, innovating, and evolving quickly, but the fifth largest economy in the world is not the wild west; existing California laws apply to both the development and use of AI.” Attorney General Bonta
The advisories summarize existing California laws that may apply to entities who develop, sell, or use AI. They also address several new California AI laws that went into effect on January 1, 2025.
The first advisory points to several existing laws, such as California’s Unfair Competition Law and Civil Rights Laws, designed to protect consumers from unfair and fraudulent business practices, anticompetitive harm, discrimination and bias, and abuse of their data.
California’s Unfair Competition Law, for example, protects the state’s residents against unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business acts or practices. The advisory notes that “AI provides new tools for businesses and consumers alike, and also creates new opportunity to deceive Californians.” Under a similar federal law, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) recently ordered an online marketer to pay $1 million resulting from allegations concerning deceptive claims that the company’s AI product could make websites compliant with accessibility guidelines. Considering the explosive growth of AI products and services, organizations should be revisiting their procurement and vendor assessment practices to be sure they are appropriately vetting vendors of AI systems.
Additionally, the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) protects Californians from harassment or discrimination in employment or housing based on a number of protected characteristics, including sex, race, disability, age, criminal history, and veteran or military status. These FEHA protections extend to uses of AI systems when developed for and used in the workplace. Expect new regulations soon as the California Civil Rights Counsel continues to mull proposed AI regulations under the FEHA.
Recognizing that “data is the bedrock underlying the massive growth in AI,” the advisory points to the state’s constitutional right to privacy, applicable to both government and private entities, as well as to the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). Of course, California has several other privacy laws that may need to be considered when developing and deploying AI systems – the California Invasion of Privacy Act (CIPA), the Student Online Personal Information Protection Act (SOPIPA), and the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act (CMIA).
Beyond these existing laws, the advisory also summarizes new laws in California directed at AI, including:
Disclosure Requirements for Businesses
Unauthorized Use of Likeness
Use of AI in Election and Campaign Materials
Prohibition and Reporting of Exploitative Uses of AI
The second advisory recounts many of the same risks and concerns about AI as relevant to the healthcare sector. Consumer protection, anti-discrimination, patient privacy and other concerns all are challenges entities in the healthcare sector face when developing or deploying AI. The advisory provides examples of applications of AI systems in healthcare that may be unlawful, here are a couple:
Denying health insurance claims using AI or other automated decisionmaking systems in a manner that overrides doctors’ views about necessary treatment.
Use generative AI or other automated decisionmaking tools to draft patient notes, communications, or medical orders that include erroneous or misleading information, including information based on stereotypes relating to race or other protected classifications.
The advisory also addresses data privacy, reminding readers that the state’s CMIA may be more protective in some respects than the popular federal healthcare privacy law, HIPAA. It also discusses recent changes to the CMIA that require providers and electronic health records (EHR) and digital health companies enable patients to keep their reproductive and sexual health information confidential and separate from the rest of their medical records. These and other requirements need to be taken into account when incorporating AI into EHRs and related applications.
In both advisories, the Attorney General makes clear that in addition to the laws referenced above, other California laws—including tort, public nuisance, environmental and business regulation, and criminal law—apply to AI. In short:
Conduct that is illegal if engaged in without the involvement of AI is equally unlawful if AI is involved, and the fact that AI is involved is not a defense to liability under any law.
Both advisories provide a helpful summary of laws potentially applicable to AI systems, and can be useful resources when building policies and procedures around the development and/or deployment of AI systems.
New York City Publishes Updated FAQs for Earned Safe and Sick Time Act
On September 26, 2024, New York City published updated frequently asked questions (FAQs) for the New York City Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA) in light of the New York City Department of Consumer and Worker Protection’s (DCWP) adoption of the October 2023 amended rules and the January 2024 law creating a private right of action for ESSTA violations.
While the FAQs provide some clarification and guidance regarding the amended rules and processes and procedures in pursuing a private right of action, they also leave some questions unanswered. In addition, the FAQs provide guidance on topics that were not included in the amended rules, including outlining possible additional uses of safe and sick leave that were not explicitly contemplated.
Quick Hits
On September 26, 2024, New York City released updated FAQs for the Earned Safe and Sick Time Act (ESSTA) to address the October 2023 amended rules and the January 2024 law allowing private rights of action for ESSTA violations.
The updated FAQs clarify and provide guidance regarding the amended rules, processes, and procedures in pursuing a private right of action, while also leaving some questions unanswered.
The updated FAQs provide guidance on additional topics regarding written safe and sick leave policies and additional uses of leave for weather-related health conditions and funerals.
Telecommuting and Remote Employees
With the advent of remote work and telecommuting, the amended rules clarify that an employee who is based outside of New York City is eligible to use safe and sick leave if the employee is “expected to regularly perform work in New York City during a calendar year” but only hours worked by such an employee in New York City will count toward the accrual of safe and sick leave. Additionally, the employee can only use accrued safe and sick leave while performing work in New York City.
While the amended rules provide some examples of how this will apply, the FAQs leave unanswered what “regularly perform work” means for purposes of determining eligibility.
Written Safe and Sick Leave Policies
For employers that have general paid time off policies, the FAQs clarify that employers must maintain written safe and sick leave policies in a single writing. Policies are not in a single writing “if they are split up across multiple documents or locations. An employer may supplement a national policy with an NYC-specific policy, provided that the national and local policies are not confusing or contradictory.”
Despite this guidance, the FAQs do not expound on the meaning of “confusing or contradictory.”
DCWP Investigations and Private Right of Action
As employees can now file a civil action in court and file a complaint with the DCWP, the FAQs provide guidance regarding those processes and procedures. As an initial matter, the FAQs clarify that there are no prerequisites to filing a lawsuit in court for ESSTA violations, and are not required to file a complaint with the DCWP first. Should an employee decide to file complaints in court and with the DCWP for the same alleged violations, the DCWP will stay its investigation until it is notified that “such a civil action has been withdrawn or dismissed without prejudice.” After a final judgment or settlement, the DCWP will then dismiss the complaint unless it “determines the complaint alleges a violation not resolved by such judgment or settlement.”
Additional Uses: Health Conditions Related to Weather Events and Funerals
The FAQs provide that employees may be able to use safe and sick leave for weather-related events, when, for example, weather-related conditions impact the health of employees or their family members such as extreme heat or poor air quality or if exposure to certain weather would pose a risk to the employee or family member due to an underlying medical condition.
In addition, the FAQs state that an employee may use safe and sick leave to attend a funeral if an employee is experiencing anxiety or depression or if a family member needs care for a mental or physical health condition.
Exhausting Available Safe and Sick Leave
Under the ESSTA, generally, it is the employee who decides whether to use safe and sick leave and how much accrued safe and sick leave to use. In reaffirming this rule, the FAQs provide that employers are “prohibited from deducting from an employee’s leave bank when the employee does not wish to use safe and sick leave to cover an absence.” Notwithstanding, the FAQs clarify that the ESSTA “does not require an employer to provide unpaid time off when an employee does not wish to use safe and sick leave to cover an absence and is not eligible for other paid leave.” However, the FAQs note that other laws may require an employer to grant unpaid time off.
Pay Statement Requirements and Unlimited Paid Time Off
The ESSTA requires employers to inform employees on their paystubs of the amount of safe and sick leave used during the pay period and the balance of accrued time remaining.
For those employers that offer unlimited safe and sick leave or unlimited paid time off, the FAQs state that “in very limited circumstances,” an employer will not be required to provide documentation showing accrual, use, and balance information each pay period. Whether this exception applies will depend on “the nature of the employer’s written safe and sick leave policy, including whether any restrictions apply, and whether in practice leave is truly unlimited.”
Even if an exception applies, the FAQs clarify that employers must still keep records showing compliance with the ESSTA.
Next Steps
Employers based in or with remote employees in New York City may wish to review their current policies and make any necessary revisions based on the updated FAQs. Employers may also want to review with and train supervisors and human resources professionals to ensure compliance and update existing practices to align with the above updates to minimize the potential for enforcement actions by the DCWP or for lawsuits by employees.
Final Regulations for New Clean Energy Production and Investment Tax Credits
Last week, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and Department of the Treasury issued the highly anticipated final regulations for the Clean Electricity Production Tax Credit set forth in Section 45Y of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) and the Clean Electricity Investment Tax Credit set forth in Section 48E of the Code (the “Final Regulations”), which may be found here. The Final Regulations follow the issuance of proposed regulations (the “Proposed Regulations”) last June. The Final Regulations provide clarification regarding the definition of “qualified facility” and the mechanism for calculating the greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions rates for qualified facilities, although a full analysis of the GHG requirements is beyond the scope of this blog post. Further, we note that with the incoming administration, the executive branch could review and, potentially, rescind, these Final Regulations, although at this point the Trump administration has not publicly indicated support or a the lack thereof.
The Final Regulations generally apply to facilities placed in service after December 31, 2024, and during a taxable year ending on or after January 15, 2025. However, certain rules relating to the “One Megawatt Exception” under Section 1.45Y-3 of the Final Regulations and relating to qualified facilities with integrated operations have a delayed applicability date that is 60 days after publication of the Final Regulations.
When Sections 45Y and 48E of the Code were initially enacted, we posted a blog describing the new statutes, which is available here. The following is a brief, high-level, summary of the Section 45Y and Section 48E rules, but does not describe every requirement for credit qualification. The rules under Sections 45Y and 48E of the Code apply to qualified facilities that both begin construction and are placed in service, each for federal income tax purposes, on or after January 1, 2025. As such, qualified facilities that either begin construction or are placed in service before January 1, 2025, should still generally look towards the rules set forth in Section 45 of the Code for the production tax credit (the “PTC”) or in Section 48 of the Code for the investment tax credit (the “ITC”), as applicable.
The credits under Sections 45Y and 48E are available with respect to any qualified facility that is used for the generation of electricity, which is placed in service on or after January 1, 2025, and has an anticipated GHG emissions rate of not more than zero. In the case of Section 48E, a qualifying energy storage facility is also eligible for the credit. Qualified facilities also include any additions of capacity that are placed in service on or after January 1, 2025.
The credit under Section 45Y generally mirrors the PTC in that it is a credit that is based on electricity produced by a qualified facility, and the credit under Section 48E generally mirrors the ITC in that it is a credit that is based on a taxpayer’s tax basis in a qualified facility, with several differences in each case. The credit amount for each is generally calculated in the same manner as the ITC or PTC, as applicable. However, the credit amount is phased out (as set forth in the chart below) based on when construction of a qualifying facility begins after the “applicable year.” Under Sections 45Y and 48E of the Code, the applicable year means the later of (i) the calendar year in which the annual greenhouse gas emissions from the production of electricity in the United States are reduced by 75% from 2022 levels, or (ii) 2032.
Year After Applicable Year in Which Construction Begins
First
Second
Third
Thereafter
Percent of Credit Remaining
100%
75%
50%
0%
The Final Regulations apply many of the historical rules of Sections 45 and 48 of the Code, including rules surrounding the base credit amount—0.3 cents per kWh of electricity (subject to inflation adjustments) under Section 45Y and 6% under Section 48E. These credit rates may be increased in either case by satisfying either the 1 MW (AC) exception or the prevailing wage requirements—up to 1.5 cents per kWh of electricity (subject to inflation adjustments) under Section 45Y and 30% under Section 48E. Energy community and domestic content bonus credits may also increase these credit rates, although there are important differences in how these rules apply.
The below highlights several notable aspects of the Final Regulations.
Notable Rules Under Section 45Y
Under Section 45Y, a facility that initially operates with greater than zero GHG emissions (and, therefore, is not eligible for the credit under Section 45Y) may later be treated as a qualified facility—and, therefore, eligible for the credit under Section 45Y—if it meets the requirements in any taxable year during the 10-year period beginning on the date the facility was originally placed in service. For example, if an otherwise qualified facility has greater than zero GHG emissions for its first three years of operation (2025-2027, for example), but then is updated in such a way that it satisfies the zero GHG emissions requirement, then the Section 45Y credit may be claimed for years 4 through 10 of operations (2028-2034, in this example).
Similar to the PTC, electricity produced at a qualified facility must be sold by the taxpayer to an unrelated person. However, in a departure from the rules under Section 45, the statute and Final Regulations provide that, in the case of a qualified facility equipped with a metering device that is owned and operated by an unrelated person, the credit under Section 45Y of the Code is available for electricity produced at a qualified facility and sold, consumed, or stored by the taxpayer. Although this rule provides some flexibility to taxpayers, the IRS declined to adopt the Section 45 rule from IRS Notice 2008-60, which provides that electricity sales will be treated as made to an unrelated taxpayer if the producer of electricity sells electricity to a related person for resale to a person unrelated to the producer.
Notable Rules Under Section 48E
Under the Final Regulations, “qualified facilities” and “energy storage technology” (“EST”) are defined, and treated, separately. Accordingly, Section 48E does not permit combined solar and storage facilities—each facility must claim the credit under Section 48E separately as a “qualified facility” or an “EST,” as applicable. This rule could have implications for application of the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, domestic content adder eligibility, and energy community adder eligibility.
Similarly, the Final Regulations define “unit of qualified facility” to include all components of functionally interdependent property, and the term “qualified facility” to mean a unit of qualified facility plus integral parts. This is significant because satisfaction of the prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements, domestic content adder eligibility, and energy community adder eligibility are each determined on a “qualified facility” basis. To take an example, this means in many cases that prevailing wage and apprenticeship, domestic content, and energy community eligibility would be measured for a solar facility at the inverter level, rather than on a project-wide basis as is required for the ITC under Section 48 of the Code. Although this rule was in the Proposed Regulations, many commenters asked the IRS to permit some form of aggregation (similar to the energy project rules under Section 48) for purposes of Section 48E. The IRS declined this request, and the rules in the Final Regulations now will require very careful planning for prevailing wage and apprenticeship, domestic content adder, and energy community adder purposes.
In addition, under the Final Regulations, the cost of qualified interconnection property (which is similarly defined under the final regulations for Section 48) is only ITC-eligible for “qualified facilities.” For EST, the cost of interconnection property is not eligible for the credit under Section 48E. Again, this is different from the application of the ITC for qualified interconnection property for energy storage technology that is eligible for the ITC under Section 48 of the Code.
Notable Rules for both Section 45Y and 48E
The Final Regulations adopt the rule from the Proposed Regulations that the following types or categories of facilities may be treated as having an emissions rate of not greater than zero: wind, solar, hydropower, marine and hydrokinetic, geothermal, nuclear fission, fusion energy, and certain waste energy recovery property. For types or categories of facilities not listed above, taxpayers must rely on the annual table that sets forth the GHG emissions rates in effect as of the date the facility begins construction or, if not set forth on the annual table, the provisional emissions rate determined by the Secretary for the taxpayer’s particular facility.
In addition, for the types or categories of facilities not listed above, the Final Regulations confirm that certain emissions of GHGs are excluded from the requirement that the GHG rate be not greater than zero, including, for example, emissions that occur before commercial operation commences and emissions from routine operational and maintenance activities.
Both Section 45Y and 48E rely on the existing prevailing wage and apprenticeship rules contained in Sections 45(b)(7) and (8) of the Code and Sections 1.45-7, 1.45-8 and 1.45-12 and 1.48-13 of the Treasury Regulations except, as noted above with respect to Section 48E, prevailing wage and apprenticeship is measured as the qualified facility level rather than the energy project level (as it has been for the ITC).
For the 1 MW (AC) exception under both Sections 45Y and 48E, the Final Regulations incorporate similar rules for calculating nameplate capacity as provided in the final regulations under Section 48. However, the Final Regulations also provide that the nameplate capacity of a qualified facility with “integrated operations” with any other qualified facility must be calculated using the aggregate nameplate capacity of each qualified facility. A qualified facility will be treated as having “integrated operations” with any other qualified facility if the qualified facilities are of the same type of technology and (1) are owned by the same or related taxpayers, (2) placed in service in the same taxable year, and (3) transmit electricity generated by the qualified facilities through the same point of interconnection, if grid-connected, or are able to support the same end user, if not grid-connected or if delivering electricity directly to an end user behind the meter. These rules have a delayed applicability date of March 16, 2025.
Both Sections 45Y and 48E adopt the familiar 80/20 rule, which states that a facility may qualify as originally placed in service even if the unit of qualified facility contains some used components of property provided the fair market value of the used components of the unit of qualified facility is not more than 20% of the total value of the unit of qualified facility (which is determined by adding together the cost of the new components of property plus the value of the used components of property included in the qualified facility).
As the (Customs and Trade) World Turns: January 2025
Welcome to the January 2025 issue of “As the (Customs and Trade) World Turns,” our monthly newsletter where we compile essential updates from the customs and trade world over the past month. We bring you the most recent and significant insights in an accessible format, concluding with our main takeaways — aka “And the Fox Says…” — on what you need to know.
This edition provides essential insights for sectors including International Trade, Aluminum and Steel Industries, Fashion and Retail, E-commerce, Automotive, and Compliance, as well as for in-house counsel, importers, and compliance professionals.
In this January 2025 edition, we cover:
Federal Circuit deliberates on Section 301 tariffs: a landmark case for importers.
Aluminum extrusions import dispute: CIT to review ITC’s negative determination.
CBP’s proposed rule for low-value shipments: CBP’s attempts to enhance efficiency and security.
Forced labor enforcement intensifies: new challenges and strategic shifts.
Mexico’s textile and apparel tariff hikes: navigating new import challenges.
CFIUS controversy: presidential block on Nippon-US Steel deal sparks legal battle.
Temporary sanctions relief: OFAC authorizes limited transactions, maintaining key restrictions.
1. Section 301 Tariffs Appeal: Federal Circuit Hears Oral Argument
On January 8, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) heard the oral argument in HMTX Industries LLC v. United States, a pivotal case challenging the legality of tariffs imposed on Chinese-origin goods under Lists 3 and 4A of the Section 301 tariff regime. These tariffs, which cover approximately $320 billion in goods, have been challenged by over 4,000 importers.
Central to the case is whether the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) actions expanding tariffs to the Lists 3 and 4A qualify as a permissible “modification” of the original Section 301 action (covering Lists 1 and 2) under Section 307 of the Trade Act of 1974. The plaintiffs argued that the term “modify” allows only moderate or minor adjustments to the original tariffs, which targeted $50 billion in goods. The judges explored whether the statutory language supports such limits and considered distinctions between this case and prior rulings interpreting a different section of the Trade Act that limited “modification” to smaller adjustments.
The panel also examined whether China’s retaliatory tariffs, which formed the basis for USTR’s tariff increases under Lists 3 and 4A, were sufficiently linked to the intellectual property violations initially investigated under Section 301. The plaintiffs argued these actions were distinct, while the government claimed they were part of the broader context of unfair practices. A final issue was whether USTR’s authority to modify tariffs when an action is “no longer appropriate” could justify broader increases, with the judges probing the potential limits of this provision.
And the Fox Says…: The CAFC is expected to issue a decision before the end of this year, though further appeals could extend the litigation into 2026. A final ruling for the plaintiffs could lead to refunds of tariffs paid under Lists 3 and 4A for those participating in the litigation, and to the end of any Lists 3 and 4A tariffs. More broadly, the decision could constrain future tariff actions, particularly those being contemplated by President-elect Donald Trump in his second term or validate such escalation of tariffs.
2. Challenging the US International Trade Commission’s Decision: Implications of the Appeal on Aluminum Extrusions Imports
On November 26, 2024, the petitioners, US Aluminum Extruders Coalition (USAEC) and the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union (USW), filed a summons with the US Court of International Trade (CIT), contesting the US International Trade Commission’s (ITC) final negative determination in the aluminum extrusions’ antidumping and countervailing duty (AD/CVD) proceedings against multiple countries. As we discussed previously, on October 30, 2024, the ITC had reached a negative determination in its final phase of the antidumping and countervailing duty investigations concerning aluminum extrusions from China, Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Italy, Malaysia, Mexico, South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam.
The CIT will either affirm the underlying decision by the ITC, which can then be appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, or it can remand the decision back to the ITC for further consideration of certain matters. Remand could lead to a new vote from the Commissioners sitting on the Commission at that time. If the decision by the Commission becomes affirmative, and the CIT affirms, AD/CVD orders will be issued. The appeal may be taken to the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
And the Fox Says…: Importers should closely monitor the CIT appeal. If the case is remanded and the ITC makes an affirmative determination which is affirmed by the CIT, AD/CVD orders will be imposed and estimated AD/CVD duties will have to be deposited and ultimately collected at liquidation. Please contact the AFS team if you are uncertain whether the product you import containing aluminum extrusions is within the scope of the investigations and therefore potentially subject to AD/CVD duties if the CIT remands the case and the ITC makes an affirmative determination.
3. CBP Proposes Enhanced Entry Process and Other New Rules for De Minimis Shipments
US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has announced a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) aimed at modernizing the entry process for low-value shipments, specifically those valued under $800. The proposed Entry of Low-Value Shipments (ELVS) rule is intended to increase the efficiency and security of processing these shipments in response to the rise of e-commerce. Through this process, CBP aims to expedite clearance and improve its ability to target high-risk shipments, such as those containing illicit drugs.
The ELVS rule would create a new “Enhanced Entry Process,” based on lessons learned from the Section 321 Data Pilot and Entry Type 86 test, requiring the advance electronic submission of various data elements, including the shipment contents, origin, destination, and a 10-digit Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) classification, amongst others. An HTSUS Waiver Privilege is also included in the proposal, allowing certain filers to bypass the requirement to submit an HTSUS classification, subject to certain requirements, including documented internal controls ensuring certain compliance measures. Goods that are regulated by other federal agencies and mail importations must go through the Enhanced Entry Process.
Additionally, the “Release from Manifest Process” will be renamed the “Basic Entry Process” and revised to include additional data elements for verifying eligibility for duty- and tax-free entry. Another key change is the specification that the “one person” eligible for the de minimis exception is only the owner or buyer of the goods and no longer a consignee receiving the goods. Where a person receives multiple shipments that exceed the $800 threshold in the aggregate on a single day, none of the shipments would be eligible for the de minimis program.
And the Fox Says…: The deadline to file comments to the NPRM is March 15. The ELVS rule is the first of two NPRMs announced by the Biden Administration in September 2024. A second NPRM is expected at a later date and will likely continue to build on CBP’s aggressive multi-pronged strategy. Stay tuned for a more in-depth analysis on the NPRM and its impacts.
4. Forced Labor Enforcement Updates: CIT Case to Challenge Forced Labor Finding, Auto Industry Targeted for Detentions, More Entities Added to UFLPA Entity List, Reports Scrutinize Global Supply Chains, USTR Issues Trade Strategy to Combat Forced Labor
Kingtom Challenges Forced Labor Finding
On December 23, 2024, aluminum extrusions exporter Kingtom Aluminio, a Chinese-owned company based in the Dominican Republic, filed a complaint with CIT to challenge CBP’s forced labor finding, which authorizes CBP to seize the company’s imports of aluminum extrusion and profile products at the port. In filing the suit, the company claims in part that CBP’s issuance of the finding was arbitrary or capricious and that CBP bypassed administrative steps in failing to first issue a Withhold Release Order. See Kingtom Aluminio v. US, CIT # 24-00264.
Auto Industry Targeted for UFLPA Detentions in FY 2025
Significantly, the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA) dashboard statistics for FY 2025 published thus far show that CBP primarily targeted the automotive and aerospace sector, with 1,239 shipments stopped for suspected violation of the UFLPA in December alone, with a total of 2,042 shipments in the first three months of FY 2025. By way of comparison, in the entirety of FY 2024, only 197 shipments in this sector were stopped. This follows scrutiny from US Congress resulting from Sheffield University and Human Rights Watch non-governmental organization (NGO) reports alleging connections to Xinjiang in every part of the auto supply chain. These statistics may reflect a shift in the industries targeted for enforcement, which have historically focused on electronics, apparel and footwear, and industrial and manufacturing materials.
DHS Adds 37 Companies to UFLPA Entity List
On January 14, the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the addition of 37 companies to the UFLPA Entity List. These entities include companies that grow Xinjiang cotton, manufacture textiles, manufacture inputs for solar modules and the energy industry, and supply critical minerals and metals. The UFLPA Entity List is nearly 150 companies.
Reports Scrutinize Supply Chains for Forced Labor Concerns
Several reports were issued last month discussing supply chains and forced labor risks:
UMASS Amherst Labor Center issued a report covering REI’s published supplier list and alleged connections to forced labor.
Transparentem issued a report covering its investigation into conditions on cotton farms in Madhya Pradesh, India. The report warned that the NGOs could not definitively link the problematic farms to the specific supply chains of brands and retailers.
The Financial Times published a report discussing billions of dollars invested by environmental, social, and governance funds linked to forced labor in Xinjiang.
In its first ever Quadrennial Supply Chain Review, the White House recommended upgrades to trade legislation to strengthen supply chains.
USTR Issues Trade Strategy to Combat Forced Labor
On January 13, USTR issued a trade strategy to combat forced labor that outlines the actions the United States is taking and considering to address forced labor in global supply chains. We will outline the USTR’s strategy in our forthcoming 2025 forced labor guide for global businesses.
And the Fox Says…: Forced labor enforcement has shown no signs of slowing down, and we anticipate that enforcement will remain steady or even increase as the Trump Administration assumes office later this month, particularly due to US Sen. Marco Rubio’s (R-FL) nomination as Secretary of State. Companies in the solar, textile, and apparel industries specifically should review the recent additions to the UFLPA Entity List to confirm whether any entities listed are in their supply chains.
Recent reports have focused on the global supply chains of fashion and apparel brands and critical industries, underscoring the importance for companies in the United States and globally to monitor these reports to ensure their supply chains are not associated with forced labor risks. While companies have been encouraged to release their supplier lists, this comes with some risk, as NGOs have scrutinized the labor practices of publicly disclosed suppliers.
Finally, as we previously discussed, the Kingtom Aluminio CIT litigation joins other cases where importers and affected companies have filed suit against CBP for issues related to forced labor enforcement. As forced labor enforcement efforts intensify, we should continue to expect legal disputes over forced labor allegations in global supply chains. To date, we have not seen a final decision on any of the cases.
5. Mexico Takes Aim at Textile and Apparel Sector With IMMEX Restrictions Focused on E-commerce and Increased Tariffs
Effective December 20, 2024, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo announced a decree imposing significant changes to the import regime for certain apparel and textile products, including tariff increases and restrictions on temporary imports under Mexico’s Manufacturing, Industry, Maquila and Export Services (IMMEX) program.
Mexico applied temporary tariff increases on goods imported into Mexico through April 23, 2026, as follows:
Increase to 35% for 138 Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) codes covering finished textile and apparel products, including items under Chapters 61, 62, 63, and 94.
Increase to 15% for 17 HTS codes covering textile inputs, including items under Chapters 52, 55, 58, and 60.
The decree also imposes restrictions on the temporary importation of certain textile and apparel products under the IMMEX program, which allows companies to defer duties on imported products, raw materials and components, enabling duty-free importation for manufacturing, assembly, export services such as e-commerce sales, or other programs, before re-exporting. The decree imposes restrictions on finished clothing and textile articles classified under HTS Chapters 61, 62, and 63 are excluded from the IMMEX program.
Shortly after the decree was published, Mexico’s Ministry of Economy revised the decree and exempted the IMMEX restriction for six months for goods classified in HTS chapters 61, 62, 63, and subheadings 9404.40 and 9404.90, as long as certain requirements are met.
And the Fox Says…: These changes are part of Mexico’s broader strategy to bolster its domestic textile and apparel industries, tackle compliance challenges under the IMMEX program, shield its textile and clothing sectors from alleged unfair trade practices, and possibly retaliate against the incoming administration’s proposed tariffs. Mexico’s decree could significantly affect textile and apparel importers utilizing the IMMEX program to bring goods into the United States.
Companies should reassess their import strategies, explore alternative sourcing to mitigate tariff impacts, and collaborate with trade compliance experts to navigate new regulations and optimize supply chain efficiency. The AFS team is well-equipped to assist businesses in adapting to these changes, offering expert guidance on global supply chains and duty mitigation.
6. Nippon No-Go: President Uses CFIUS Authority to Block Nippon-US Steel Acquisition, Parties Sue
On January 4, President Biden issued an executive order prohibiting the acquisition of US Steel by Japanese firm Nippon Steel, pursuant to his Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) authorities. CFIUS is an interagency committee charged with reviewing certain foreign investments in the United States for national security risks. If CFIUS finds that such a risk arises from a given transaction, it can recommend that the president prohibit the transaction. President Biden’s order follows a contentious CFIUS review process of the approximately $14 billion deal, which resulted in a “split recommendation.” Split recommendations to the president result when CFIUS cannot come to agreement whether a transaction creates national security risks. In response to the order, US Steel and Nippon Steel filed multiple lawsuits alleging, among other things, political interference in the process.
And the Fox Says…: CFIUS has entered into uncharted territory. Presidential prohibitions on their own are extremely rare; “split recommendations” by CFIUS are rarer still; and CFIUS litigation is almost unheard of. Regardless of the outcome, this case is likely to significantly shape CFIUS’ evolving role in the national security and investment space for many years to come. The results are unpredictable: buyer (and seller) beware.
7. General License Gives Temporary Sanctions Relief to Post-Assad Syria
The US Department of Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued General License 24 on January 6, authorizing for the next six months:
Transactions with governing institutions in Syria following December 8, 2024.
Transactions in support of the sale, supply, storage, or donation of energy, including petroleum, petroleum products, natural gas, and electricity to or within Syria.
Transactions that are ordinarily incident and necessary to processing the transfer of noncommercial personal remittances to Syria, including through the Central Bank of Syria.
The license — which aims to ensure that US sanctions “do not impede essential governance-related services in Syria following the fall of Bashar al-Assad on December 8, 2024” — covers transactions that are otherwise prohibited under Syria Sanctions Regulations, the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations, and the Foreign Terrorist Organizations Sanctions Regulations.
There are several important exceptions to the authorization, including most — but, crucially, not all — financial transfers to blocked persons (like Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham, the organization in control of the post-Assad government) and new investments in Syria. Note that comprehensive export controls against Syria are still very much in place. Check out our full client alert here.
And the Fox Says…: Companies and individuals relying on General License 24 must make sure that their activities are in one of the three approved categories and do not fall into one of the exceptions. In the meantime, OFAC’s wait-and-see approach offers temporary but much-needed sanctions relief to the Syrian people.
William G. Stroupe II, Natalie Tantisirirat, Sylvia G. Costelloe, and Matthew Tuchband contributed to this article.
Listen to this article
New Year, New Leave Laws – Understanding State Leave Law Updates Effective January 1, 2025
When did you last look at your employee leave policies? As the calendar turns to a new year, new changes often arrive, and 2025 is no exception. Employers should take note of the recent updates to state leave laws that went into effect on January 1, 2025.
Here are some states have implemented new or expanded leave laws as of January 1, 2025:
Connecticut
Employers with 25 or more employees working in the state of Connecticut must provide paid sick leave to all employees. Employees can accrue one hour of paid sick leave for every 30 hours worked, up to a maximum of 40 hours per year. Employers now have the option to frontload the paid sick leave at the beginning of each year, rather than being required to carry over unused leave to the next year. This leave can be used for the diagnosis, care, or treatment of an employee’s or their family member’s illness or injury, or for specific needs related to family violence or sexual assault.
Delaware
Employers with 10 or more employees primarily working in Delaware must begin making payroll deductions for the Delaware Paid Family and Medical Leave Program. Employers are required to contribute 0.8% of wages, and they can require their employees to pay up to 50% of the cost of the program. The first contribution payment is due by April 30, 2025.
Maine
Maine employers are also required to begin making payroll deductions to the state’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Program. Unlike Delaware, the law applies to any employer with at least one employee based in Maine. Employers with 15 or more employees must contribute 1% of wages to the program, with the option to deduct up to 50% of this contribution from employees’ wages. Employers with fewer than 15 employees must contribute 0.5% of wages, and they can deduct the entire contribution from employees’ wages. Employers covered by this law must ensure they are registered in the Maine Leave Contributions Portal to start making payments. The first payment is due by April 30, 2025.
New York
New York now requires employers to provide all employees residing in the state with an additional 20 hours of paid prenatal personal leave for any healthcare services related to pregnancy. This includes services such as physical exams, medical procedures, testing, consultations with healthcare providers, end of pregnancy care, and fertility treatment. This leave is available only to the pregnant employee receiving healthcare services and does not extend to spouses, partners, or other support persons. Pregnant employees using this leave will be paid at their regular rate of pay or the applicable minimum wage rate, whichever is greater. Once the pregnancy concludes, the employee is no longer eligible for this additional leave.
Upcoming Changes in Other States
These are just a few of the state leave laws that took effect at the start of 2025. However, additional changes are on the horizon, including Michigan’s Earned Sick Time Act, effective February 21, 2025; Missouri’s paid sick leave law, effective May 1, 2025; and Nebraska’s paid sick leave law, effective October 1, 2025. As more laws are introduced throughout the year, staying informed about these changes is essential for ensuring compliance and effectively supporting employees.
Listen to this post
H-1B Visas: Will Trump 2.0 Be a Turning Point for Employers Needing Skilled Foreign Workers?
Takeaways
A second Trump administration may align U.S. immigration policy with U.S. workforce needs on this particular aspect more than the first one did.
Despite limitations, the H-1B visa program has been instrumental in sustaining U.S. dominance in technology and innovation.
Employers will need to stay on top of potential changes to the program.
Related links
The Visas Dividing MAGA World Help Power the U.S. Tech Industry – WSJ
Prevailing Wage Information and Resources | U.S. Department of Labor
H-1B Characteristics Congressional Report FY2022
Article
Skilled immigration is making headlines with renewed focus on the H-1B nonimmigrant visa program, the most popular employment-based visa for foreign professional workers. Recent statements by Trump advisors Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, along with President-Elect Donald Trump himself, suggest the second Trump Administration may take a more favorable stance on H-1B visas compared to the “America First” approach of the past.
On Dec. 28, 2024, Trump surprised many by declaring his support for the H-1B program, calling himself a “believer in H-1B.” This followed his appointment of Sriram Krishnan as senior policy adviser on artificial intelligence — a decision that drew criticism due to Krishnan’s advocacy for “unlocking skilled immigration,” a stance seemingly at odds with past policies.
This shift in tone could align immigration policy with industry needs, offering opportunities to address talent gaps in critical sectors. As debates continue, the H-1B program’s role in driving innovation and bridging workforce shortages remains essential — a development employers relying on foreign talent cannot afford to overlook.
Introduced in 1990, the H-1B program allows U.S. companies to hire highly skilled foreign nationals for “specialty occupations” requiring at least a bachelor’s degree. It has played a pivotal role in filling talent gaps in technology, healthcare, life sciences, and finance. By enabling access to global talent, the program has been instrumental in sustaining U.S. dominance in technology and innovation. Leading companies depend on H-1B workers, many of whom occupy positions in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, or STEM, fields. While the majority of STEM positions are filled by U.S. workers, the share of foreign workers — including H-1B visa holders — has more than doubled to 26 percent between 1990 and 2023 — a testament to the program’s importance for maintaining America’s competitive edge.
Critics of the H-1B program have long argued that it encourages cheap labor and undermines the competitiveness of U.S. workers. They also have voiced concerns about the perceived dependency of H-1B workers on their employer-sponsors, which they allege limits the mobility of these workers. However, these criticisms fail to acknowledge safeguards and provisions already embedded in the program, including:
Wage Protections: Employers sponsoring H-1B workers must adhere to strict Department of Labor wage guidelines. They are required to submit a Labor Condition Application certifying that the H-1B worker will be paid at least the prevailing wage — the average salary for similar roles in the geographic area of employment. USCIS data indicates an average salary of nearly $130,000 annually for computer-related occupations, which could hardly be described as “cheap labor.”
Job Portability: The notion that H-1B workers are tied to their sponsors ignores the portability provisions of the program. Under the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act, H-1B workers can change employers by filing a new petition. In FY 2023, USCIS received 75,843 “change of employer” petitions — nearly 90% percent of the annual H-1B cap. This highlights the program’s flexibility and dispels the myth that workers are bound to their original employers.
Cap-Exempt Employers: A significant portion of H-1B visas is allocated to “cap-exempt” employers, such as universities and research institutions, highlighting the importance of foreign talent in advancing innovation. Yet, the debate often overlooks how these institutions contribute to the economy and workforce development.
Looking Ahead
Despite criticism, the H-1B program remains a cornerstone of the U.S. workforce strategy, with demand continuing to outpace supply. For FY 2025, USCIS received 470,342 registrations for just 85,000 available visas — a testament to its enduring popularity and importance in addressing skills gaps.
As the next H-1B cap lottery process approaches in March, employers should stay informed and prepared, collaborating with immigration counsel to navigate potential changes under the incoming administration.
EnforceMintz — Long Tail of Pandemic Fraud Schemes Will Likely Result in Continued Enforcement for Years to Come
In last year’s edition of EnforceMintz, we predicted that 2024 would bring an increase in False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement activity related to COVID-19 pandemic fraud. Those predictions proved correct. The COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force (CFETF), in conjunction with five COVID Fraud Enforcement Strike Forces and other government agencies, has resolved many significant criminal and civil pandemic fraud cases over the past year. In April 2024, the CFETF released a COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force 2024 Report (the CFETF Report) describing the CFETF’s recent efforts and including a plea for more fraud enforcement funding, which suggests that additional enforcement activity is on the horizon. While that funding request has thus far gone unheeded, we expect more civil pandemic fraud enforcement actions (and continuing criminal actions) in 2025.
Civil and Criminal Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) Fraud Enforcement
Since 2020, criminal PPP fraud has dominated COVID-19 fraud enforcement headlines, and 2024 was no different. Criminal fraud schemes have concerned common fact patterns involving fraudsters who (i) obtained funding to which they were not entitled, (ii) submitted false certifications or inaccurate information in a loan application, or (iii) submitted false certifications or inaccurate information in seeking loan forgiveness. However, in the past year, civil PPP fraud enforcement has begun to evolve.
In 2024, criminal PPP fraud enforcement broke up multiple COVID-19 fraud rings involving actors who fraudulently obtained loans for fictitious businesses, packed PPP applications with false documentation (provided in exchange for kickbacks), and falsely certified information regarding the number of employees and payroll expenses that would entitle them to PPP funding. Typical charges in these cases included wire fraud, bank fraud, making false statements to federally insured financial institutions, conspiracy, and money laundering.
On the civil side, PPP fraud enforcement seemed to increase in 2024. Interestingly, some civil PPP fraud cases involved schemes similar to criminal actions. Often the government’s decision to pursue such cases as civil, criminal, or both depends on the evidence of intentional fraud. For example, in January 2024, a clinic and its owners agreed to a $2 million judgment in connection with multiple fraudulent acts, including PPP fraud arising from their certification that they were not engaged in illegal activity and that their business suffered quarterly or year-over-year losses, therefore entitling them to PPP funding. In October 2024, one FCA recovery totaling $399,990 involved a home health agency and its owner who received two PPP loans after certifying that the company would receive only one. More recently, in December 2024, a private asset management company and its owner agreed to pay $680,000 to settle FCA allegations brought by a relator. The company and its owner allegedly falsely certified that PPP loans were economically necessary and included false statements in the information submitted when seeking forgiveness for the loan. Cases of this nature apparently did not rise to the level of criminal wrongdoing, in the government’s view.
A number of civil PPP fraud FCA cases from the past year involved increasingly complex theories and allegations. These more complicated fact patterns require years of investigation and are expensive. As a result, such fraud enforcement actions may have a “long tail” and continue for years to come.
For example, in May 2024, a private lender of PPP loans agreed to resolve allegations that it knowingly awarded inflated and fraudulent loans to maximize its profits, then sold its assets and bankrupted the company. The lawsuit was initiated by whistleblowers (known under the FCA as “relators”), including an accountant and former analyst in the lender’s collection department. As part of the settlement with the lender, the United States received a general unsecured claim in the bankruptcy proceeding of up to $120 million.
More recently, in December 2024, the United States intervened in a complaint against certain former executives of the lender who allegedly violated the FCA by submitting and causing the submission of false claims for loan forgiveness, loan guarantees, and processing fees to the Small Business Administration (SBA) in connection with lender’s participation in the PPP. When we discussed this case previously, we noted that we expected to see similar cases in the future brought against private lenders who failed to safeguard government funds. More broadly, we expect the trend of increasingly complex civil PPP fraud actions will continue in 2025.
Fraud Enforcement Involving Programs Administrated by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA)
Provider Relief Fund (PRF) and Uninsured Program (UIP) fraud enforcement picked up in 2024. As described in the CFETF Report, the CFETF has leveraged an interagency network to make strategic improvements in how it investigates fraud. (Interagency collaboration is another theme from 2024, which we discuss more here.) The CFETF Report also describes a department-wide effort by the Department of Justice (DOJ) to roll out database tools to all US Attorney’s Offices to detect and investigate fraud. According to the CFETF Report, DOJ has analyzed more than 225 million claims paid by HRSA, the entity that dispensed PRF and UIP loans during the height of the pandemic. Closer investigatory scrutiny has led to increased enforcement actions.
PRF Fraud
Criminal PRF fraud enforcement resembled PPP enforcement from prior years, which was often based on theft or misappropriation theories. These enforcement actions often include charges against PRF recipients who either (i) retained funds to which they were not entitled or (ii) used PRF funds for ineligible expenses, like luxury goods. For example, in April 2024, a defendant who operated a primary care clinic pleaded guilty to theft and misappropriation of PRF funds. The defendant had certified that PRF funds would be used by the clinic only to prevent, prepare for, and respond to COVID-19. Despite making this representation, the clinic operator used the PRF funds for personal purposes, including cash withdrawals and the purchase of personal real estate, a luxury vehicle, a boat, and a trailer.
UIP Fraud
There were a number of noteworthy criminal UIP enforcement actions in 2024. In March 2024, a defendant was charged with filing fraudulent COVID-19 testing reimbursement, through the laboratory he managed, for COVID-19 testing that was never provided. The defendant allegedly obtained and used the personal identifying information of incarcerated or deceased individuals in connection with those claims. The indictment alleged that the defendant received $5.6 million in reimbursement and used those UIP funds to purchase property in South Florida.
Enforcement actions involving UIP funds involved significant alleged losses by the government. In February 2024, a defendant pleaded guilty to mail fraud and identity theft charges in what the government called “one of the largest COVID fraud schemes ever prosecuted.” The defendant and her co-conspirators filed more than 5,000 fraudulent COVID-19 unemployment insurance claims using stolen identities to unlawfully obtain more than $30 million in UIP fund benefits. To execute the scheme, the defendant and others created fake employers and employee lists using the personally identifiable information of identity theft victims. The defendant was sentenced to 12 years in prison, and seven co-conspirators have also pleaded guilty in connection with this large fraudulent scheme.
In one major civil FCA resolution, in June 2024, a group of affiliated urgent care providers agreed to pay $12 million to resolve allegations that they submitted or caused the submission of false claims for COVID-19 testing to the HRSA UIP. The government alleged that the providers knew their patients were insured at the time of testing (and in some instances had insurance cards on file for certain patients), yet they submitted claims (and caused laboratories to submit claims) to HRSA’s UIP for reimbursement. The resolution is noteworthy because the providers received a relatively low FCA damages multiplier as credit for cooperating with the government in its investigation under DOJ’s Guidelines for Taking Disclosure, Cooperation, and Remediation into Account in False Claims Act Matters. More information on DOJ’s efforts to encourage voluntary self-disclosure can be found in our related EnforceMintz article here.
Fraud Schemes Involving Respiratory Pathogen Panels
Fraud involving expensive respiratory pathogen panels (RPPs) has been in the spotlight since the beginning of the pandemic. In 2022, the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) warned about laboratories with questionably high billing for tests submitted for reimbursement alongside COVID-19 tests, including RPPs. The OIG deemed this scenario as deserving of “further scrutiny.” Medicare reimbursed some outlier laboratories approximately $666 dollars for COVID-19 testing paired with other add-on tests while Medicare reimbursed approximately $89 for this same testing to the majority of laboratories. The trend in RPP fraud enforcement that we discussed last year continued in 2024: enforcement actions involved a mix of criminal and civil RPP fraud cases involving significant damages.
One laboratory owner was criminally charged with submitting $79 million in fraudulent claims to Medicare and Texas Medicaid for medically unnecessary RPP tests. The laboratory owner used the personal information of a physician — without the physician’s knowledge — to submit the claims even though the physician had no prior relationship with the test recipients, was not treating the recipients, and did not use the test results to treat the recipients. The government seized over $15 million in cash from this defendant.
In another case involving both criminal and civil charges, a Georgia-based laboratory and its owner agreed to pay $14.3 million to resolve claims that they paid independent contractor sales representatives volume-based commissions to recommend RPP testing to senior communities interested only in COVID-19 testing. The independent sales contractors used forged physician signatures and sham diagnosis codes to add RPP testing to requisition forms ordering only COVID-19 testing. The whistleblower in this case — the laboratory’s manager — is set to receive $2.86 million of the recovery.
As the government continues to deploy data analytics to identify outlier cases, we suspect enforcement actions involving COVID-19 companion testing will continue.
Future of COVID-19 Enforcement
Over four years from the enactment of the CARES Act, COVID-19 fraud enforcement continues to evolve. Since the beginning, the government has consistently pursued criminal cases involving misused or fraudulently obtained funds, fake COVID cures, and fake COVID testing. In 2022, the government extended the statute of limitations for PPP fraud from five to ten years, recognizing that more time was needed to investigate and prosecute fraud on these programs.
This past year, a broader range of pandemic fraud schemes were prosecuted criminally and civilly. These often data-heavy or analytics-based cases require a significant investment of time and resources. Recognizing the resources required for these more complicated matters, the CFETF called for increased funding and an extension of the statute of limitations for all pandemic-related fraud in the CFETF Report. As of the date of this publication, that request has not yet been answered. It thus appears the funding request will be determined by the new administration.
Despite uncertainty around future funding for COVID-19 fraud enforcement, we anticipate more criminal and high-dollar civil enforcement actions in 2025. The CFETF Report described 1,200 civil pandemic fraud matters pending as of April 1, 2024, for which DOJ had obtained more than 400 judgments or settlements totaling over $100 million. This leaves approximately 800 pending civil matters, and untold billions in fraudulently obtained funds still in the hands of fraudsters. Despite uncertainty around future fraud enforcement funding, as a general matter, fraud enforcement has bipartisan support. Either way, employees, related parties, and patient relators — with the support of sophisticated relator’s counsel — will likely continue to bring pandemic fraud cases in the coming years. Overall, COVID-19 fraud enforcement is unlikely to slow down in 2025.
DOL: Employers Cannot Mandate PTO Use with State/Local Paid Leave Benefits During FMLA
The U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) has issiued an opinion letter stating that employers cannot require employees to substtute accrued paid time off during a Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) leave where the employee is also receiving benefits under a state or local paid family or medical leave program.
The opinion letter – which does not have the force of law but sets forth the agency’s enforcement position – answers a longstanding open question around the interplay between the FMLA, state/local paid leave programs, and accrued paid time off.
A Quick Refresher: FMLA and State Family/Medical Leave Programs
The federal FMLA entitles eligible employees of covered employers to up to 12 weeks (or in limited cases, 26 weeks) of unpaid, job-protected leave per 12-month period for specified family and medical reasons. Covered reasons for FMLA leave include an employee’s own serious health condition, caring for a parent, spouse or child with a serious health condition, and caring for a new child following birth, adoption or foster placement.
Since the FMLA’s enactment in 1993, numerous states (including New York, California, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and others) have instituted family and/or medical leave programs that provide partially paid leave (usually based on a percentage of the employee’s wages, up to a set cap) for personal medical, family care and/or parental leave reasons. Likewise, certain local governments have implemented paid family and medical leave programs specifically for their municipal employees. Many of these programs permit leave for reasons that are also qualifying reasons for leave under the FMLA. However, state/local paid leave programs often include benefits that differ from or exceed what the FMLA provides, such as longer leave periods or additional covered reasons for leave.
What Do the FMLA Regulations Say About Substitution of PTO?
While FMLA leave is unpaid, the governing regulations allow an employee to elect, or an employer to require the employee, to “substitute” accrued employer-provided paid time off (e.g., paid vacation, paid sick leave, etc.) for any part of an unpaid FMLA period – that is, the accrued paid time off may be used concurrently with FMLA leave to enable the employee to receive full pay during an otherwise unpaid leave period. However, the regulations further state that, during any part of an FMLA leave where an employee is receiving disability or workers’ compensation benefits, neither the employer nor the employee can require substitution of paid time off because such leave is not unpaid. Rather, when disability or workers’ compensation benefits are being received, the employer and the employee may only mutually agree (where state law permits) that accrued paid time off will be used to supplement such benefits.
EXAMPLE: John tells his employer he requires 12 weeks of leave to recover from a serious back surgery. John’s employer designates the 12 weeks as FMLA leave. John also applies and is approved for 12 weeks of disability benefits under his employer’s short-term disability program, pursuant to which he will receive a benefit equal to two-thirds of his regular wages. John’s employer cannot require John to substitute his accrued vacation time because he is receiving disability benefits and therefore his FMLA is not unpaid. However, John and his employer agree to use one-third of his available vacation time each week to supplement his disability pay so John receives 100% pay during the leave.
How Does the Opinion Letter Impact Substitution of PTO During FMLA?
Because they have only more recently come into existence, state and local paid family or medical leave programs are not directly addressed in the FMLA regulations. However, the opinion letter now makes clear that “the same principles apply to such programs as apply to disability plans and workers compensation programs.”
First, the opinion letter emphasizes that “where an employee takes leave under a state or local paid family or medical leave program, if the leave is covered by the FMLA, it must be designated as FMLA leave[.]” The opinion letter then goes on to state:
[W]here an employee, during leave covered by the FMLA, receives compensation from a state or local family or medical leave program, the FMLA substitution provision does not apply to the portion of leave that is compensated. Because the substitution provision does not apply, neither the employee nor the employer may use the FMLA substitution provision to unilaterally require the concurrent use of employer-provided paid leave during the portion of the leave that is compensated by the state or local program. [However], if the employee is receiving compensation through state or local paid family or medical leave that does not fully compensate the employee for their FMLA covered leave, and the employee also has available employer-provided paid leave, the employer and the employee may agree, where state law permits, to use the employee’s employer-provided accrued paid leave to supplement the payments under a state or local leave program.
The opinion letter also notes that if an employee’s leave under a state or local paid family or medical leave program ends before the employee has exhausted their full FMLA leave entitlement and the leave therefore becomes unpaid, the FMLA substitution provision would then apply and the employee would be able to elect, or the employer would be able to require the employee, to substitute accrued paid time off.
EXAMPLE: Jane tells her employer she requires 12 weeks of leave to care for her husband while he recovers from a serious back surgery. Jane’s employer designates the 12 weeks as FMLA leave. Jane also applies and is approved for 8 weeks of paid family care benefits under her state’s paid family and medical leave program, pursuant to which she will receive a benefit equal to two-thirds of her regular wages. Jane’s employer cannot require Jane to substitute her accrued vacation time during the 8 weeks of her FMLA leave where she is concurrently receiving state family care benefits because her FMLA during that time is not unpaid. However, Jane and her employer agree to use one-third of her available vacation time each week during the first 8 weeks to supplement her state family care benefit so Jane receives 100% pay during that time. Beginning on week 9, Jane is no longer eligible for state family care benefits and her FMLA leave is now unpaid, so pursuant to its FMLA policy Jane’s employer requires her to substitute her remaining accrued vacation time during the FMLA leave until it is exhausted.
Implications and Action Steps for Employers
The opinion letter clarifies what has been a gray area around the interplay between the FMLA, state/local paid leave programs, and accrued paid time off. For example, the regulations governing the New York Paid Family Leave Law (“NYPFL”) state that “[a]n employer covered by the FMLA . . . that designates a concurrent period of family leave under [the NYPFL] may charge an employee’s accrued paid time off in accordance with the provisions of the FMLA.” However, it had previously been unclear whether this language in fact permitted employers to require substitution of accrued paid time off during a concurrent FMLA and NYPFL leave. It is now clear that such a requirement is impermissible, though employers and employees may agree to use paid time off to supplement NYPFL benefits.
Employers should now review their leave policies and practices to ensure that any provisions around the use of accrued paid time off during FMLA leave comport with the WHD’s interpretation of the requirements of the law. To the extent that any such policies require employees to substitute accrued paid time off during an FMLA leave where an employee is concurrently receiving disability, workers’ compensation or state/local paid family or medical leave benefits, the policies should be revised to provide that paid time off may only be used to supplement such other payments and only if both the employer and the employee agree.
However, employers are reminded that, as noted above, there may be situations where employees are eligible for benefits under state/local paid leave laws that are not also covered by the FMLA. As such, employers should also take note of what an applicable state/local paid family or medical leave law may permit (or not permit) around the substitution of paid time off and apply those rules during any leave period that does not run concurrently with the FMLA.