Skip to main content

2009 NY Slip Op 00440

Citation
2009 NY Slip Op 00440
Jurisdiction
New York (state)
Source verification
cross_accepted_sealed

Full Text

1,314 chars
The Council saw the change to section 8-130 as the means for obviating the need for wholesale textual revision of the myriad specific substantive provisions of the law. While the specific topical provisions changed by the Restoration Act give unmistakable illustrations of the Council's focus on broadening coverage, section 8-130's specific construction provision required a "process of reflection and reconsideration" that was intended to allow independent development of the local law "in all its dimensions" (A Return to Eyes on the Prize, 33 Fordham Urb LJ at 280).[FN19]
[*12]

Accordingly, we first identify the provision of the City HRL we are interpreting and then ask, as required by the City{**61 AD3d at 75} Council: What interpretation "would fulfill the uniquely broad and remedial purposes of the City's human rights law"?[FN20]

Despite the popular notion that "sex discrimination" and "sexual harassment" are two distinct things, it is, of course, the case that the latter is one species of sex- or gender-based discrimination. There is no "sexual harassment provision" of the law to interpret; there is only the provision of the law that proscribes imposing different terms, conditions and privileges of employment based, inter alia, on gender (Administrative Code § 8-107 [1] [a]).[FN21]
[*13]