In other words, the Gallo court begins with the premise that it is necessary to maintain the distinction that current federal law makes between non-harassment sex discrimination claims on the one hand (where a permissive standard is applied) and sex discrimination claims based on harassment (where "hostile work environment" is the term of art describing the application of a restrictive standard).
Contrary to the assumption embedded in Gallo,[FN28]
the task under the City HRL, as amended by the Restoration Act, is not to ask "Would a proposed interpretation differ from federal law?" but rather "How differently, if at all, should harassment and non-harassment sex discrimination cases be evaluated to achieve the City HRL's uniquely broad and remedial purposes?"[FN29]
As discussed above, we conclude that a focus on unequal treatment based on gender—regardless of whether the conduct is "tangible" (like hiring or firing) or not—is in fact the [*17]approach that is most faithful to the uniquely broad and remedial purposes of the local statute. To do otherwise is to permit far too much unwanted gender-based conduct to continue befouling the workplace.