"make clear that the standard to be applied to retaliation claims under the City's human rights law differs from the standard currently applied by the Second Circuit in [title VII] retaliation claims . . . [and] is in line with the standard set out in the guidelines of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission" (Committee Report, 2005 NY City Legis Ann, at 536).
In section 8 (D) (3) of its Compliance Manual (1998), dealing with the subject of retaliation, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) indicates that the
"broad view of coverage accords with the primary purpose of the anti-retaliation provisions, which is to '[m]aintain[ ] unfettered access to statutory remedial mechanisms.' Regardless of the degree or quality of harm to the particular complainant, retaliation harms the public interest by deterring others from filing a charge. An interpretation of Title VII that permits some forms of retaliation to go unpunished would undermine the effectiveness of the EEO statutes and conflict with the language and purpose of the anti-retaliation provisions" (citations omitted).[FN10]
[*8]
To accomplish the purpose of giving force to the earlier proscription on retaliation "in any manner," the Restoration Act amended section 8-107 (7) to emphasize that
"[t]he retaliation or discrimination complained of under this subdivision need not result in an ultimate action with respect to employment, housing or a public accommodation or in a materially adverse{**61 AD3d at 71} change in the terms and conditions of employment, housing, or a public accommodation, provided, however, that the retaliatory or discriminatory act or acts complained of must be reasonably likely to deter a person from engaging in protected activity."