The Council directs courts to the key principles that should guide the analysis of claims brought under the City HRL:
"discrimination should not play a role in decisions made by employers, landlords and providers of public accommodations; traditional methods and principles of law enforcement ought to be applied in the civil rights context; and victims of discrimination suffer serious injuries, for which they ought to receive full compensation" (Committee Report, 2005 NY City Legis Ann, at 537).
[*6]
In short, the text and legislative history represent a desire that the City HRL "meld the broadest vision of social justice with the strongest law enforcement deterrent."[FN7]
Whether or not {**61 AD3d at 69}that desire is wise as a matter of legislative policy, our judicial function is to give force to legislative decisions.[FN8]
As New York's federal and state trial courts begin to recognize the need to take account of the Restoration Act, the application of the City HRL as amended by the Restoration Act must become the rule and not the exception.[FN9]
[*7]
II. Retaliation
In 1991, the anti-retaliation provision of the City HRL (Administrative Code § 8-107 [7])—which had been identical to{**61 AD3d at 70} the State HRL provision—was amended in pertinent part to proscribe retaliation "in any manner" (Local Law No. 39 [1991] of City of NY § 1). If courts were to construe this language to make actionable only conduct that has caused a materially adverse impact on terms and conditions of employment, it would constitute a significant narrowing of the Council's proscription on retaliation "in any manner." However, courts have consistently engaged in this construction. Therefore, the City Council was determined, via the Restoration Act of 2005, to